From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Abolishing ChangeLog files Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:18:53 +0300 Message-ID: <83d2ui5zsy.fsf@gnu.org> 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> <87boa24sg8.fsf@gmail.com> <838v56wumf.fsf@gnu.org> <874nfubnyl.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1364548723 26064 80.91.229.3 (29 Mar 2013 09:18:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 09:18:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, thierry.volpiatto@gmail.com To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 29 10:19:10 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 1ULVSl-00049T-Pf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:19:07 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36936 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ULVSN-0005Xl-HW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 05:18:43 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:35488) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ULVSK-0005Xf-4D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 05:18:41 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ULVSI-0001GV-M2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 05:18:40 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il ([80.179.55.169]:63098) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ULVSI-0001GI-DM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 05:18:38 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MKF005000H2XT00@a-mtaout21.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:18:37 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MKF005IG0IWVW50@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:18:33 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <874nfubnyl.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.169 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:158414 Archived-At: > From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" > Cc: Thierry Volpiatto , > emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:38:10 +0900 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > From: Thierry Volpiatto > > > > Each time I tried bzr log (when I had bzr) it ends up With C-c because > > > it was too long (against the emacs trunk), so I always had a copy of > > > emacs converted to hg or git to be able to see the full logs. > > > So no need to use time to measure the slowness (at least for me). > > > > I showed you the times, which I think don't come anywhere near "very > > slow". If you are willing to believe to some piece of documentation > > rather than measurements, then I must say your conclusions have no > > real basis in reality. > > Eli, he probably *was* measuring, although not as precisely as you > are since his stopwatch was implemented in impatience units rather > than seconds. Possibly. But I would expect numbers, even approximate (counting seconds is easy), instead of references to docs.