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 19:58:58 +0400 Message-ID: <5155BA42.10609@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> <5154C76B.6090303@yandex.ru> <83hajuwygn.fsf@gnu.org> <83a9pmwxb5.fsf@gnu.org> <5155AE46.8060905@yandex.ru> <831uay5ib7.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1364572767 30563 80.91.229.3 (29 Mar 2013 15:59:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:59:27 +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 Fri Mar 29 16:59:53 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 1ULbiQ-000132-B9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:59:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51477 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ULbi1-0002Cs-Kz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:59:17 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:42659) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ULbhq-0002Be-H0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:59:15 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ULbhl-0003uA-Dj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:59:06 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-lb0-f176.google.com ([209.85.217.176]:45156) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ULbhg-0003sv-98; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:58:56 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-lb0-f176.google.com with SMTP id y8so431071lbh.35 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:58:55 -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=R6FK7Qga1cq1vGgMWfskE0JAXgCRzOCw4tmEmcCn5Cs=; b=m/Q+dff4Ntd3+ZfGTgrOlo7DqufAguz6G67tljghnlCXXxjPxNPKpQODZoG4OdXY0H Be9GBJoPCWSBJneBhN8fL1v1qr4J8TWSLqUY/UrqwaESuf3e0gVd6ptJLf88ZlliUE/C ioLlRnRwkdCUMPmccIPXZc0+h0gBN1+RBExaU6el6qp41ow3zVEfPUbXDGqa3A9qXSF3 l/oHdd3LLFiaSZ9PViZxcnc86k7gfUVOB2n1pn2H1ehHlkJb/VB4ntLLyGYwu51lCkvX ThY7k8Jv1MjHusSFqsPiuSnufZj93ouylcO7CmsqL07PFSAbI/9m0+onzdkgAcp37NZR /Avw== X-Received: by 10.152.133.52 with SMTP id oz20mr1401357lab.30.1364572734947; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:58:54 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([178.252.98.87]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e9sm1424880lbz.1.2013.03.29.08.58.53 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:58:54 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 In-Reply-To: <831uay5ib7.fsf@gnu.org> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130329-0, 29.03.2013), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.85.217.176 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:158430 Archived-At: On 29.03.2013 19:36, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > It's ~/.bzr.log, not ~/bazaar/.bzr.log. > Ah, it works fine, then. Thanks. >> Thank you. It inspired me to run the same non-interactive tests you did, >> and indeed the full 'git log lisp\progmodes\ruby-mode.el > NUL' >> invocation is non-instantaneous every time, and it's on the same order >> of magnitude as 'bzr log', although the latter takes twice as long: >> >> emacs-git-savannah>timep git log lisp\progmodes\ruby-mode.el > NUL >> >> real 00h00m04.652s >> user 00h00m00.000s >> sys 00h00m00.015s >> >> emacs-bzr\trunk>timep bzr log lisp\progmodes\ruby-mode.el > NUL >> >> real 00h00m08.269s >> user 00h00m07.878s >> sys 00h00m00.280s >> >> But! Git starts streaming output just as soon as it can, hence my >> earlier impression that the command is instantaneous. > > That only matters if you want the first few revisions. What if you > want the last? The most recent revisions are streamed first (they're at the top), and they are usually the ones I need. If I want the last, I can at least do some reading and scrolling while they're being retrieved. And you shouldn't underestimate the perception of being instantaneous. If you were looking for a reason why people think that Bazaar is too slow, this one's a very plausible culprit. >> > I did, just now: (...) >> >> I tried it, too, and here Git wins hands-down. >> >> Here's how long it takes to update both when they are already up-to-date >> (staging a situation when they're the same number of revisions >> out-of-date is harder): >> >> emacs-git-savannah>timep git pull >> Already up-to-date. >> >> real 00h00m02.139s >> user 00h00m00.000s >> sys 00h00m00.031s >> >> emacs-bzr\trunk>timep bzr update >> Дерево в актуальной ревизии 112180 ветви >> bzr+ssh://dgutov@bzr.savannah.gnu.org/emacs/trunk >> >> >> real 00h00m09.963s >> user 00h00m00.343s >> sys 00h00m00.202s > > So you wasted the whole of 7 sec to know that your tree is up to > date. Big deal! You can reply "big deal" to almost any speed comparison. But yes, Bazaar took 7 seconds longer and, measuring relatively, was 4 times slower. It's annoying, and it gives a bad impression. And it's even slower when there's actually stuff to update. >> Before that, I updated this Bazaar clone from a several-days-old >> revision, and it took 4 minutes. > > Your network needs an urgent upgrade. My bandwidth definitely exceeds the connection speeds reported by Bazaar when it's doing its thing. >> I don't have a similar result for Git >> to compare, but considering it cloned the whole history in 30 minutes >> (same as on your machine) > > You are mistaken, a full clone took me 3 hours, not 30 min. I misremembered, then. But it definitely took me 30 minutes today to make a new clone of git://git.savannah.gnu.org/emacs. I guess that means that my network is fine. You, on the other hand, may be hitting a bottleneck there. This could explain why network operations of Git and Bazaar take the same time on your machine.