Mercurial vs. Git – Repository size

[Uwe Brauer]

>>> "SSvM" == Stanimir Stamenkov via Mercurial <mercurial at mercurial-scm.org> writes:

> Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:46:52 +0100, /Marcus Harnisch/:
>> Rafaël's FOSDEM (and linux.conf.au?) presentation has received some
>> media coverage.
>> https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Mercurial-More-Rust-2021

> While Mercurial may excel at some performance scenarios and is
> actively improving on it, I wonder if there are efforts to improve on
> repository sizes as it seems to me it is one of the main reasons Git
> gets chosen over Mercurial (if we ignore the fact Git just have wider
> adoption, integration, and richer tooling available).

Another reason might be speed. 

I have cloned GNU emacs both with git and mercurial, besides the size
issue (which shouldn't be a problem today given the large capacity of
disks), the speed is quite different in both.

 For example

 hg branches

Is much slower than 

 git branch -a

I am not sure about topics, since I did not test it, but I might in the future.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5673 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial/attachments/20210212/f5401a78/attachment.p7s>