Re: Referring to revisions in the git future.

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Stefan Monnier writes:

 > > Yes, git commits are cheap.
 > 
 > The same was said of Bzr commits.  I'll see when I start using it
 > more extensively.

The bzr developers didn't care about speed until somebody complained,
and their designs for repos were not only complexified by their
requirements for human-friendliness (not to mentioned their attachment
to multi-layered APIs), but they repeatedly changed those underlying
data structures.

Git has always had only one repo structure: a object database whose
"large" structure is provided by what are basically conses (the
commits).  The database has been layered over "packs", it's true, but
those are actually a speed optimization for accessing commits and
other objects.

Historically, Git also perceived itself to be competing on speed
(specifically with Mercurial, thus the introduction of packs), and
addressed performance issues quickly and thoroughly.

I don't know if that makes you feel better, but it should. :-)