From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: What have the Romans done for us? (Bazaar) Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:39:14 +0200 Message-ID: <87bpdxk7tp.fsf@telefonica.net> References: <20100405145637.GA3248@muc.de> <87mxxhhq3b.fsf@red-bean.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1270496379 4652 80.91.229.12 (5 Apr 2010 19:39:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 19:39:39 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 05 21:39:38 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 1Nys93-00004s-K4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:39:37 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43290 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nys93-000082-0C for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2010 15:39:37 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Nys8w-00007G-Dv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2010 15:39:30 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=34129 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nys8u-00006B-QS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2010 15:39:29 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nys8t-000314-Rn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2010 15:39:28 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:45162) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nys8t-00030i-G6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2010 15:39:27 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nys8q-0007uy-Fx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:39:24 +0200 Original-Received: from 83.32.114.13 ([83.32.114.13]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:39:24 +0200 Original-Received: from ofv by 83.32.114.13 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:39:24 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 54 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.32.114.13 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:DbtFbDOOm+F82l2FC05xH5TYcmo= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:123219 Archived-At: Karl Fogel writes: [snip] >> bzr log is so slow (40 seconds) as >>to be only somewhat useful. > > Hmm. On my 4-year-old IBM ThinkPad R60 running Debian GNU/Linux: > > $ time bzr log -n0 --show-ids > log-n0.out > real 0m25.147s > user 0m23.173s > sys 0m1.540s > $ > > That's for the entire history of the project. I don't have a CVS tree > handy to test with, but my memory is CVS was not faster at that > operation -- though of course, CVS had to go over the network, so it's > hard to compare, really. What exact log operations are slow for you vs > the comparable CVS operations? (A non-rhetorical question, by the way. > I believe you when you say it's slow, I just want to narrow down what > "it" is.) [I'm not the OP] Showing the log of a file or directory is much slower on bzr than on CVS. `annotate' takes a few seconds for CVS but half a minute for bzr with a warm cache on a 2.4 GHz Intel Q6600 CPU, which can be considered a quite decent machine. `log file' and `annotate' are unbearably slow on my netbook. I extensively commented about this on the bzr ml and the response was "making bzr faster is not one of our priorities." >> Even updating one's repository takes many >>minutes, something which took only a few seconds with CVS. > > Yes. But remember: https://savannah.gnu.org/support/?107077 > (which is actively being worked on). For the last months I was comparing update times, and Launchpad's smart bzr server requires on average 30% of the time that the dumb server at Savannah takes. This may sound impressive, but it is still way slower than CVS. It may be unreasonable to compare CVS and bzr on this aspect, but other well-known dVCS systems manage to be much faster than bzr while moving around revisions. So, I can understand Alan's frustration if he does not make use of the dVCS features. OTOH, I'm quite happy about Emacs migration and I'm convinced that more and more Emacs hackers will come to appreciate the advantages of a dVCS, although bzr possibly is not the one who brings the best experience right now. [snip]