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: bzr vs. git repository Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2011 12:12:40 +0200 Message-ID: <83wrmportz.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20110101.092838.211465745.wl@gnu.org> <83zkrlosry.fsf@gnu.org> <20110101.105445.492149087.wl@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1293876648 21825 80.91.229.12 (1 Jan 2011 10:10:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 10:10:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Werner LEMBERG Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 01 11:10:44 2011 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 1PYyQ8-0006W6-4O for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 11:10:44 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33699 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PYyQ7-00061D-CY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 05:10:43 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=39509 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PYyPz-0005zo-BJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 05:10:36 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PYyPy-0001iO-6s for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 05:10:35 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il ([80.179.55.169]:59543) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PYyPx-0001i8-SY; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 05:10:34 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LEC006009JFKU00@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 12:10:32 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.124.219.104]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LEC006I09LI4PB0@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 12:10:32 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <20110101.105445.492149087.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:134100 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2011 10:54:45 +0100 (CET) > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Werner LEMBERG > > > >> As you can see, bzr still needs about three times more bandwidth in > >> both receiving and sending... > > > > I don't think this will convince anyone to switch, but frankly, I no > > longer understand what is all that fuss with git's speed. > > I don't want to convince anyone, I just report the issue. You are > overreacting. It's hard to overreact, with all the git propaganda that goes on here. For a project that decided long ago to use bzr, this borders on being inappropriate. Posting this on the Bazaar mailing list would be TRT, IMO. It's always a Good Thing to get the developers think about getting their software more efficient. But posting this here can never make bzr hog less of the bandwidth, so I don't see why would you do this except to tease. More to the point: You've analyzed the net traffic, but not the other aspects of performance, like file I/O, CPU load, memory consumption, etc. At least in principle, there are trade-offs between all of these. And depending on the particular system configuration of the end users, the ones that matter could be other than the net traffic. In my testing, the differences in the net traffic are not noticeable in the end result. And the end result is what really matters for users (as long as speed and efficiency in general is what we are talking about).