> Your comment does not seem to be in good faith, implying that they've made up the performance difference.

I believe I have accurately represented what the article says. Had the article provided the comment you have just linked, I would have commented on that as well. I did not intend to imply that they manufactured the performance difference, merely that they don't know what they are talking about. The thought I have in my head is that they are incompetent, not that they are malicious.

I wholeheartedly agree that libgit2 is full of footguns, that's why it matters that it's not actually "git's own C library" but a separate project. I also agree that you usually end up shelling out to git, exactly because of those problems libgit2 has. If those problems aren't speed though, and I don't think they are, the blog post would have to cover how this reimplementation of libgit2 avoids those problems.

I'm not here to litigate if bun would be faster with libgit2. I am however here to make the argument that the blogpost does not make a convincing argument for why libgit2 isn't good enough.