From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Abolishing ChangeLog files Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 02:42:51 +0400 Message-ID: <5154C76B.6090303@yandex.ru> References: <87y5d9p5td.fsf@dex.adm.naquadah.org> <87vc8dtbcb.fsf@lifelogs.com> <871ub1gmdf.fsf@engster.org> <87d2ulovd0.fsf@dex.adm.naquadah.org> <85r4j0h1ww.fsf@member.fsf.org> <85li98h1qx.fsf@member.fsf.org> <87ehf0b3x2.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87obe3gaem.fsf@engster.org> <87ip4bj1ay.fsf_-_@earth.home> <83wqsrwkim.fsf@gnu.org> <87a9pn5tlf.fsf@yandex.ru> <83txnvwhqw.fsf@gnu.org> <5154B063.2050904@yandex.ru> <83li97w6um.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1364510589 12333 80.91.229.3 (28 Mar 2013 22:43:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 22:43:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 28 23:43:36 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ULLXi-00013g-Td for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 23:43:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35545 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ULLXK-0007H5-Pk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:43:10 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:38806) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ULLXE-0007Gj-G5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:43:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ULLX9-00029W-DM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:43:04 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-la0-x22e.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c03::22e]:38159) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ULLX4-00027j-0h; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:42:54 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-la0-f46.google.com with SMTP id fq12so56627lab.19 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 15:42:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-antivirus:x-antivirus-status; bh=571bmXZORJwnmaYwwxVmkYVy31hBuFJFFjpjWzrH8ng=; b=mAwj0b4UvDdYdoygaTmzG6zJIbWvRiMDJYOIflgQkLMF/U4+B9e/e0JRHy5twbepJO WHazO3Lw8ppcbwLgSlZLOGjJjn8fe/xEyJrinbX/E/4AE2MfoDbkf6sDfDfqNj25L0al OQrPbLrnWTjcq7gA/Gbao2no7P1PAqiId9v4D0sIfJkEJ5FbItQb827vA3U5pAW+kS+4 xVjQYM50/MGJm5wrVjnVTQcTB1C3mZwYpB2ZPmSswlbpuqki+E5os1IgBQp7Vk6SLKqF DLjaxp91taPNK9CJc2Dch0DR3WGp8SgRUlz4f6cXgvNDIwpvrpGSMgDdEV02K61MQZVI qgOQ== X-Received: by 10.152.105.244 with SMTP id gp20mr143805lab.34.1364510572785; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 15:42:52 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([178.252.98.87]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id kw9sm336577lbb.4.2013.03.28.15.42.50 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 28 Mar 2013 15:42:51 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 In-Reply-To: <83li97w6um.fsf@gnu.org> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130328-0, 28.03.2013), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:4010:c03::22e 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:158391 Archived-At: On 29.03.2013 1:29, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 01:04:35 +0400 >> From: Dmitry Gutov >> Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >> To answer your question, then, yes, 4.5 times faster indeed is "much >> more quickly". The difference here is not critical, but nice to have. > > Get real! This started from the example of someone looking at the log > entry; human needs much more than a few hundreds of milliseconds to > read it, so a difference of 700 msec (for 5000 revisions!) is entirely > irrelevant. Do you really know someone who can read 5000 entries in > under one second? Why are you arguing with "nice to have"? I gave you a more significant example below. >>>> In my experience, Bzr is especially slow when showing log for a subtree >>>> or a specific file. >>> >>> I could ask you to show numbers (because I have no such experience), >>> but I won't. No one in this thread wants any serious discussion, >>> anyway. >> >> I would send you the numbers if you pointed me at the mingw port of >> 'time' you're apparently using. > I wrote that program myself. Unix 'time' cannot be ported, because it > uses too many Posix APIs. Since you don't seem inclined to distribute it, you won't get exact numbers from me. >> But here's an example command: >> >> git log lisp\progmodes\ruby-mode.el | less >> >> It takes about 300ms on the first run and is instantaneous after that. > > Not here: > > $ time git log lisp/progmodes/ruby-mode.el > /dev/null > > real 0m5.140s > user 0m0.015s > sys 0m0.000s > > D:\gnu\bzr\emacs\msys-build>timep bzr log lisp\progmodes\ruby-mode.el > nul > > real 00h00m04.281s > user 00h00m04.078s > sys 00h00m00.218s > > Entirely comparable. And re-running the commands doesn't change the > times, so I don't think any caching is involved. That's a weak reply. Since I get much better numbers with Git, it just means that you need to install a newer version, do 'git gc', or whatever. On the other hand, you get the same numbers with Bazaar, which confirms that Bazaar can't do better. For the record: C:\Users\gutov\vc\emacs-git>git --version git version 1.8.0.msysgit.0 >> Anyway, the most important speedup I expect to see is the time it takes >> to do "git pull" vs "bzr update". I haven't done any real testing there >> yet, but the latter command takes entirely too long. > > Depends on how large is your pull. E.g., the initial "git clone" took > me almost 3 hours; bzr did the same in under 50 min. I mean that whenever I need to do a commit in the Emacs repository, 'bzr update' takes at least 30 seconds or so, even when the difference between the local and remote heads is a couple of commits. I don't see this kind of problem with Git, but maybe I just haven't tried it with a repository hosted on the same server as Bazaar one.