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: VC and bzr. Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 04:18:09 +0200 Message-ID: <87d3xq52u6.fsf@telefonica.net> References: <4BCF45FA.1060808@swipnet.se> <4BCFDE02.5090808@swipnet.se> <4BD01AC9.1000200@swipnet.se> <4BD0395F.7040500@swipnet.se> <87eii7629z.fsf@telefonica.net> <87aasv5zsz.fsf@telefonica.net> <87633j5ya8.fsf@telefonica.net> <871ve75t1e.fsf@telefonica.net> <83633j48mi.fsf@gnu.org> <87sk6n4733.fsf@telefonica.net> <87hbn33zd2.fsf@telefonica.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1271989115 12257 80.91.229.12 (23 Apr 2010 02:18:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 02:18:35 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 23 04:18:34 2010 connect(): No such file or directory 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 1O58TR-0005xp-Nd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 04:18:34 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40259 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O58TQ-0005rX-Um for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:18:32 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1O58TK-0005pJ-Kx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:18:26 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=59703 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O58TI-0005mF-Q6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:18:25 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O58TG-0005i3-By for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:18:24 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:43590) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O58TG-0005hl-28 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:18:22 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O58TD-0005tY-QO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 04:18:19 +0200 Original-Received: from 41.red-88-24-214.staticip.rima-tde.net ([88.24.214.41]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 04:18:19 +0200 Original-Received: from ofv by 41.red-88-24-214.staticip.rima-tde.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 04:18:19 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ connect(): No such file or directory Original-Lines: 44 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 41.red-88-24-214.staticip.rima-tde.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:+9reNxH308JBpX2LZOOIH9CBvRs= 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:124096 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >>>> and if that doesn't reduce the required time to something >>>> reasonable, the Bazaar people have the means for fixing the >>>> problem. >>> I don't know what that means or if it's true. >> The problem now is that bzr must operate on a remote filesystem and a >> commit may require quite a bit of file I/O. >> Once you have a friendly buddy on the other end, there is no reason for >> a commit to a remote branch taking much more time than a local one, >> being the setup of the ssh session the most expensive addition. > > Actually, that's not true. > For a "lightweight remote checkout", the commit (even over a smart > server) would be more difficult to make efficient than locally because > the commit requires a potentially large transfer of data because you > need to compare the new files (on one host) to the old files (on the > other host). I don't know why you care about lightweight remote checkouts, but anyways it is not necessary to send the entire file over the wire. rsync doesn't need to do that, why should bzr? Oh, wait... the bzr guys doesn't particulary care about efficiency, do they? > For other situations, the commit is really a commit+push, and the push > is equivalent to a "pull", just done the other way around. And if > you've followed Bzr development, you'll know that Bzr is not that great > at doing pulls efficiently and it's unlikely to improve soon. Yes, they are happy enough with the current performance. Maybe if there comes to be known among the crowd the fact about Emacs hackers not being very pleased with their bzr experience, maybe the bzr guys would reconsider their attitude and start caring about middle-sized projects like Emacs. It is a bit appalling to see how they boast about "bzr is now mature enough to the point of being the choice for big projects like Emacs." Oh, and I think that support for asyncrhonous commits on VC is good to have, but with bzr sometimes taking *minutes* for a commit, special situations must be considered, like the user editing and saving files while the commit is on the way, or trying to commit something while the previous one is not finished yet. It is not unlikely that some of those scenarios may end with some breakage.