On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Mike Hommey <m...@glandium.org> wrote: >> Option 2 is where this discussion started (in the Tuesday meeting a few >> weeks ago, >> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/2013-05-07#Should_we_switch_from_hg_to_git.3F). >> Since then I've had a number of conversations and have been convinced >> that a wholesale change is the less attractive option. The cost of a >> wholesale change will be *huge* on the infrastructure end, to a point >> where we need to question whether the benefits are worth the cost. I >> have also spoken with other large engineering orgs about git performance >> limitations, one of which is doing the opposite switch, going from git >> to hg. > > I bet this is facebook. Their usecase includes millions of changesets > with millions of files (iirc, according to posts i've seen on the git > list).
I think so too, though I've mostly heard from them view the Mercurial list. IIRC both git and hg didn't satisfy them in terms of scalability, but hg won out because it was WAY easier to hack on (in spite of being at the time a little slower than git). They've since done a lot of stuff to improve hg performance, which Mozilla would likely benefit from (at least if people and servers upgrade to newer versions -- the latter is in the process of being done). One interesting thing is their newly announced watchman tool (a kind of cross-platform inotify/kqueue wrapper, no Windows support yet IIRC), which is particularly important for large (as in files) trees. Cheers, Dirkjan _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
