From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Werner LEMBERG Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: (no subject) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 08:08:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <20101016.080817.485378771.wl@gnu.org> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-2022-jp-3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1287209319 5282 80.91.229.12 (16 Oct 2010 06:08:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 06:08:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 16 08:08:37 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P6zwa-0005Zc-EN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 08:08:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34254 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P6zwZ-00019n-Tq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 02:08:35 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=53349 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P6zwP-00018g-Bt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 02:08:26 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P6zwN-0004yr-1M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 02:08:25 -0400 Original-Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22]:33527 helo=mail.gmx.net) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P6zwM-0004yL-Lq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 02:08:22 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 16 Oct 2010 06:08:20 -0000 Original-Received: from 77.116.35.88.wireless.dyn.drei.com (EHLO localhost) [77.116.35.88] by mail.gmx.net (mp072) with SMTP; 16 Oct 2010 08:08:20 +0200 X-Authenticated: #54312696 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/9MwF8Qwj91+C0xl5PUmR/WVGYPYgBqaK4OZcwF1 cQteTxOfowfomh In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Mew version 6.3.50 on Emacs 24.0.50.1 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. 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: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:131752 Archived-At: > bzr was slow on savannah due to the use of sftp. > Do people find bzr satisfactory now? Well, I'm only doing `bzr pull', and it seems indeed to be more responsive than previously. However, the amount of data transferred by bzr is still excessively large. For example, updating from rev. 101894 (Oct. 10th) to today's rev. 101979 (with `bzr pull') used more than 20MByte! Looking at the amount of changes actually applied to the repository, I estimate that git would need only approx. 200 to 300kByte $(Q#|(B this is 70 to 100 times less... It would be great if someone using an emacs git repository could verify my estimation. git compresses the data on the remote side before transferring it. Does bzr omit that step? Maybe I'm missing a bzr option? Otherwise, it looks like a severe flaw in the design. Given that many users (including me currently) use mobile internet connections which are sometimes extremely slow due to weak signal strength, bandwidth *is* an issue even today. Werner