Bazaar-NG vs. Mercurial -- speed comparison

[Bryan O'Sullivan]

Alexander Belchenko <bialix <at> ukr.net> writes:

> I think difference in speed is the result of using special optimized
> C-code in Mercurial (Hg).

No, the few C routines are only partially responsible for the speed difference.
Many of the numbers that I posted to lsb-futures do not touch the C code at
all.  The C routines only comprise about 5% of the code base.

> Hg designed for speed, Bzr -- for easy to use.
> Probably it's very unconvincing argument to prefer bzr.

Actually, if it were true, then I think bzr would have a good piece of
differentiation on that count.  However, hg is very much aimed at simplicity
of use, too.  For similar operaions, hg and bzr even have identical command
names and options.

> Hg has smaller source tree, smaller commands sets.

Of course you can interpret this as either good or bad.  I personally very much
like the small command set that Mercurial provides.

> And all about
> changesets. Maybe changesets is good, but I like revisions and the way
> of Bzr move.

I doubt that there's a real difference between the two, other than naming.

> If you add file in Hg you cannot to remove it before commit.

Yes, this is a silly bug.

> Hg has worse windows support than bzr. Actually I don't find any
> mentions that windows support is important to hg team.

It is very important, but it's also important to have core contributors who
use Windows a lot, which I would be delighted if we had.

> So I see only one strength of Hg -- its speed.

There's also Mercurial Queues, which is a wonderful feature for certain
styles of development.