From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andre Spiegel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: patch for documentation about version control Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:59:27 +0100 Message-ID: <1100206767.3428.224.camel@localhost> References: <87vfce289d.fsf@floss.red-bean.com> <1100078556.3428.151.camel@localhost> <1100174117.3428.194.camel@localhost> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1100206807 10042 80.91.229.6 (11 Nov 2004 21:00:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:00:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 11 21:59:57 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CSM2v-0004St-00 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:59:57 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CSMBQ-0001dn-Vh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:08:44 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CSMBH-0001cS-Va for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:08:36 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CSMBH-0001bu-G5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:08:35 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CSMBH-0001bn-DY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:08:35 -0500 Original-Received: from [193.113.160.16] (helo=mail.o2.co.uk) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CSM2J-0007LW-3L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:59:19 -0500 Original-Received: from [217.231.190.233] (217.231.190.233) by mail.o2.co.uk (7.0.028) (authenticated as andre.spiegel@o2online.de) id 4171E58800547A0A; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 20:59:17 +0000 Original-To: ttn@glug.org In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:29761 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:29761 On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 19:25 +0100, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote: > the vc-rcs-* funcs take 93% and 36% of the total time, respectively. > unfortunately, nothing comes to mind for `vc-rcs-annotate-command' > speedup. So that means analyzing the tree takes longer than building it in the first place, right? I'm not sure what algorithm you use for that, since I don't understand your code ;-) Maybe there's a quadratic complexity in there, which could be improved upon. Did you check how CVS does it? We'd have to test on a few more real-world files, and on a real-world machine (forgive me, I mean >300MHz :-) If it stays below a minute for very large/complex change histories, I'd say we're still fine. I have access to a few more complicated RCS masters, and will try your code on those.