From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: (no subject) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 02:26:56 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20101016.080817.485378771.wl@gnu.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1287383234 30856 80.91.229.12 (18 Oct 2010 06:27:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 06:27:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Werner LEMBERG Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 18 08:27:12 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 1P7jBg-0005V1-1X for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 08:27:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35664 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P7jBf-0001SV-5P for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 02:27:11 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=33405 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P7jBS-0001Oz-4s for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 02:27:00 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P7jBR-0006JL-7I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 02:26:58 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:41395) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P7jBR-0006JH-5G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 02:26:57 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P7jBQ-0002sU-Ht; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 02:26:56 -0400 In-reply-to: <20101016.080817.485378771.wl@gnu.org> (message from Werner LEMBERG on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 08:08:17 +0200 (CEST)) 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:131792 Archived-At: Well, I'm only doing `bzr pull', and it seems indeed to be more responsive than previously. 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 this is 70 to 100 times less... It would be great if someone using an emacs git repository could verify my estimation. It would be interesting to set up parallel repositories, the latest bzr and git, and update them at the same times. Then it would be possible to rigorously compare the amount of data transferred. git compresses the data on the remote side before transferring it. Does bzr omit that step? Maybe I'm missing a bzr option? It might be that the compression occurs in scp, and you're measuring the amount of raw data rather than the amount actually transmitted. But that's just a speculation. It would be interesting to find out for certain. -- Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org, www.gnu.org