From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Reitter Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: 23 branch - can't push - lock Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 09:57:43 -0400 Message-ID: <2B735F1F-756A-461D-A4D0-562AAC9BE17A@gmail.com> References: <1C745F22-51D9-4FE6-A8EF-5D621109E656@gmail.com> <83boxxy9de.fsf@gnu.org> <65EAEB6A-294A-4B8F-8BCA-F37C5914E5D6@gmail.com> <83aadhy1vg.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1308321513 17505 80.91.229.12 (17 Jun 2011 14:38:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:38:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 17 16:38:29 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QXaBo-0002zI-6S for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 16:38:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38590 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QXaBm-00020i-Nj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:38:26 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:55093) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QXZYm-00078c-R4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 09:58:13 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QXZYg-00078w-Pr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 09:58:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-iw0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169]:60090) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QXZYS-00074Z-0B; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 09:57:48 -0400 Original-Received: by iwg8 with SMTP id 8so2665892iwg.0 for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 06:57:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to:x-mailer; bh=/tG3Euckl71MaPuILc8SVTa/CBpYdtdLpLuS1AnQNIQ=; b=gjIqO6PD4YQtZO9DXFGRleR80XsOXzw6xJvPo2tapQREt92AkYNmPBUMXYY/JPs+DB kxq9Q80y9u1Ywj4lOn/HZpGC9nGWKcz/8p4c6UuhtsBH/6y2boCBunlT7J5koszSn6j+ 43m3CPlRE1pwDBG3D5Lj4ldYdE41uLvck2VE0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=EeFU3Pc8CgWOFlZkyciOJaevl///VxD9A9Q41Wj3dOhEY8K2tojo+sVa0SEbc96Uuw XpPfuEUPRFSeTA+v278CIVxuAHARyS+AJg9/ahQtXgRebR5eHGe97fnL+j0kJaYe38Gd VQz/YuQxik6LhzOdbW9ara7UMYJQ85SAKxC8o= Original-Received: by 10.42.178.193 with SMTP id bn1mr2039497icb.510.1308319066516; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 06:57:46 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from elin.andrew.cmu.edu (ELIN.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.46.20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 10sm1465029ibn.20.2011.06.17.06.57.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 17 Jun 2011 06:57:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83aadhy1vg.fsf@gnu.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.214.169 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:140601 Archived-At: On Jun 16, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> First page only: =20 >> real 0m3.594s [faster when repeated,i.e., in cache] >=20 > What kind of machine is that? On my 6-year-old Windows box with a > single 3 GHz core, I get this: Core i7, 2.6GHz, 4GB RAM.=20 > And anyway, 3.5 sec is hardly significantly different from 0.8, for > producing something that a human needs to _read_. Actually, I disagree. A modern interface should not make the user wait = that long - I would estimate anything beyond 30ms is discernible, and = anything beyond 1s may be seen as interrupting someone's workflow. At some point, people (perhaps including you) did an awesome job making = Emacs start up fast. I have had many complaints from Aquamacs users = because it didn't start up as fast (loading a few more libraries, etc) - = and we're talking 3-4 seconds here. Just getting the first pages of a log should happen instantly - this is = an operation one does all the time. I'd find the timing you get = acceptable, but mine is just sluggish. (And I agree, vc-annotate should also be reasonably fast, even though = I'd accept a few seconds delay here). >> The merge of a single revision (-c) also took a long time. >=20 > How long is "long" in this case? (You can look it up in your > ~/.bzr.log file, it logs the time and network throughput/speed of each > command, something I've searched high and low in git and couldn't > find.) I started out with the wrong command, "bzr merge -c 104024", because I = thought that the revision ID is unique (sorry, Git thinking). It took = 65 seconds to give me an error message! And the wording of the error message wasn't even very user-level: InvalidRevisionSpec: Requested revision: u'104024' does not exist in = branch: BzrBranch7('file:///Users/dr/Projects/emacs/emacs-23/') Then I did the right thing, and it took 112 seconds (see below). > Thu 2011-06-16 11:07:41 -0400 > 0.070 bazaar version: 2.1.0 > 0.070 bzr arguments: [u'merge', u'-c', u'104024', u'../trunk'] > 0.084 looking for plugins in /Users/dr/.bazaar/plugins > 0.138 looking for plugins in = /Library/Python/2.6/site-packages/bzrlib/plugins > 0.282 Returning RevisionSpec RevisionSpec_before for before:104024 > 0.283 encoding stdout as sys.stdout encoding 'us-ascii' > 0.396 opening working tree '/Users/dr/Projects/emacs/emacs-23' > [64363] 2011-06-16 11:09:25.819 INFO: M src/ChangeLog > [64363] 2011-06-16 11:09:25.885 INFO: M src/nsmenu.m > [64363] 2011-06-16 11:09:25.885 WARNING: Text conflict in = src/ChangeLog > [64363] 2011-06-16 11:09:25.885 WARNING: Text conflict in src/nsmenu.m > [64363] 2011-06-16 11:09:31.749 INFO: 2 conflicts encountered. > 112.112 Transferred: 0KiB (0.0K/s r:0K w:0K) > 112.112 return code 1 I updated Bazaar after that to 2.3.1, and did the same merge a second = time (this one may be much easier for Bzr now - I don't know). It still took 20 seconds. That's sluggish in my book. =20 Is there a way to reset a branch to a previous commit, i.e., the = equivalent of "git reset --hard"? Then I could test this better. With --no-plugins, the time is cut in half. Better, but still sluggish. = I'll see if I can eliminate some plugins if they hurt performance so = much. Thanks for this hint.