Re: Emacs Bazaar repository

[James Westby <jw+debian@jameswestby.net>]

On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 14:35 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> John Arbash Meinel <john@arbash-meinel.com> writes:
> 
> > The biggest reason 'bzr log' is slow is because we spend some time
> > analyzing the ancestry to give a "pretty" view, while git/hg do not.
> 
> git most certainly does.

But it's analysis is different. It is doing something that has fewer 
constraints on the output that bzr log.

You still end up with a list of revisions, but the ordering on bzr's
is more complex to calculate.

> 
> > Specifically, when you do "bzr log" we traverse the ancestry to figure
> > out when revisions were merged, etc.
> 
> What makes you think git doesn't?
> 

I don't think John articulated his point as he would have liked there.

> > I believe plain "git log" just starts outputting the revisions as it
> > encounters them, and "hg log" also outputs them as they are stored.
> 
> git has a large variety of options for selecting order and subset and
> relation of what to output to the log.
> 

However it doesn't have one that outputs them in the same order as bzr.

> It is still fast, even while doing rename/copying detection on the fly.
> 

It is fast, no-one is disagreeing with that.

> > (I believe 'git log' defaults to showing the log based on a local sort
> > by date. Neither one tries to figure out that A1 and A2 were merged
> > into tip, which is another step that 'bzr log' does.)
> 
> I suggest you actually check your beliefs against the actual program.
> "The reason the other software is faster must be because it sucks in
> comparison to ours." is a fallacy.  git has been developed by a set of
> kernel-savvy developers working on a large code base with a necessity
> for high speed (Linus merges several hundred patches from different
> repositories daily).
> 

I'm sure that John did not intend to say that git "sucks", and I firmly
believe that none of us believes that, and certainly no-one would
argue that it is not faster than bzr.

I think there are still criticisms of the UI, even though it has
significantly improved recently.

Thanks,

James