From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Moving to bzr? Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 12:50:51 +0900 Message-ID: <871vviif6s.fsf@xemacs.org> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1231127337 12971 80.91.229.12 (5 Jan 2009 03:48:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 03:48:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 05 04:50:07 2009 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 4.50) id 1LJgTf-0005So-Gg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Jan 2009 04:50:07 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41486 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LJgSP-0002Yt-Tr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:48:49 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LJgSK-0002Ya-U1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:48:44 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LJgSI-0002YE-CC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:48:43 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=47365 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LJgSI-0002YB-48 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:48:42 -0500 Original-Received: from mtps01.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.223]:53052) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LJgSE-0006ee-NE; Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:48:38 -0500 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mtps01.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CF411535AE; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 12:48:33 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id ABA4E11F377; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 12:50:51 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM 8.0.12-devo-585 under 21.5 (beta28) "fuki" 83e35df20028+ XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:107590 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > Is "bzr pull" the equivalent of "cvs up -d"? That is, is that the > command to resync with the master repository? Because if it is, it is > slower than CVS by a large margin (but so is git's 3 min, so I assume > "bzr pull" is not the equivalent of "cvs up -d"). Are you testing on Windows? git has historically had performance problems on Windows because its Unix-oriented optimizations are often pessimizations on Windows. Like other posters, I've never seen a git pull longer than 30 seconds (Mac OS X) or 15(!) on GNU/Linux, some of which updated more than 100 objects (maybe nearly 1000) because I don't do it often. In terms of effect on the working directory, "bzr pull" is indeed the equivalent of cvs up -d, but the implementation is quite different. I believe that there are important improvements to pull that will be in bzr 1.11 or 1.12 (so within two months), but they may require a repo format upgrade.