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: Is bzr+ssh's speed satisfactory? Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 09:52:37 +0200 Message-ID: <83fww6bmm2.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20101016.080817.485378771.wl@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp-2004 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1287216635 426 80.91.229.12 (16 Oct 2010 08:10:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 08:10:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Werner LEMBERG Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 16 10:10:32 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 1P71qU-0005xT-8N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 10:10:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41609 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P71qT-0001ho-GU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 04:10:25 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=60872 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P71nJ-0000P2-NW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 04:07:15 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P71a9-0008IZ-Tc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 03:53:36 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:38202) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P71a9-0008I7-Mt; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 03:53:33 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LAD00J00HUDK600@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 09:52:36 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.93.189]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LAD00IJIHVND1C0@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 09:52:36 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <20101016.080817.485378771.wl@gnu.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) 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:131756 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 08:08:17 +0200 (CEST) > From: Werner LEMBERG > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > 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. These questions are better sent to the Bazaar list (bazaar@lists.canonical.com), where the Bazaar developers can give definitive answers to them.