From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Harald Meland Newsgroups: gmane.comp.version-control.bazaar-ng.general,gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs Bazaar repository Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 01:49:18 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87skyvse7k.fsf@xmission.com> <86ejae96t4.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1205542172 15838 80.91.229.12 (15 Mar 2008 00:49:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 00:49:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bazaar@lists.canonical.com, Eli Zaretskii , dak@gnu.org, Matthieu Moy , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Andreas Schwab Original-X-From: bazaar-bounces@lists.canonical.com Sat Mar 15 01:49:58 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvbg-bazaar-ng@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from chlorine.canonical.com ([91.189.94.204]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JaKaz-0003ZH-V5 for gcvbg-bazaar-ng@m.gmane.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 01:49:58 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=chlorine.canonical.com) by chlorine.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JaKaP-0002kY-Ud; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 00:49:21 +0000 Original-Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.10.15]) by chlorine.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JaKaO-0002kK-3m for bazaar@lists.canonical.com; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 00:49:20 +0000 Original-Received: from mail-mx9.uio.no ([129.240.10.39]) by pat.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JaKaM-0001Vs-Uf; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 01:49:18 +0100 Original-Received: from klodrik.uio.no ([129.240.12.6]) by mail-mx9.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JaKaM-0008VY-LG; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 01:49:18 +0100 Original-Received: from hmeland by klodrik.uio.no with local (Exim 4.44) id 1JaKaM-0000KM-DM; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 01:49:18 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Andreas Schwab's message of "Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:41:13 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5) X-UiO-Scanned: 1AAF973D9FA796146EC3600142FADB101B849161 X-UiO-SR-test: A2753B9B342C3A43562616A486EE4815E987F8EF X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 129.240.12.6 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 200 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 1 total 33866 max/h 400 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0 X-BeenThere: bazaar@lists.canonical.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.8 Precedence: list List-Id: bazaar discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bazaar-bounces@lists.canonical.com Errors-To: bazaar-bounces@lists.canonical.com Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.version-control.bazaar-ng.general:38633 gmane.emacs.devel:92639 Archived-At: [Andreas Schwab] > Matthieu Moy writes: > >> Andreas Schwab writes: >> >>> Yes, "diff" is quite important as well. Unfortunately, bzr diff seems >>> to have the same performance problem. >> >> It shouldn't be on a "normal" setup at least with a recent enough bzr. >> Git is obviously faster, but for example, on an emacs tree, "bzr diff" >> takes 0.3 seconds, while Git takes 0.05. So, the time taken by bzr is >> acceptable to me. > > What is the fastest way to get the difference of a revision relative to > its ancestor? I would guess "bzr diff -r before:revid:$revision_id..revid:$revision_id" (which ought to be equivalent to "bzr diff -c revid:$revision_id") as that (in theory) shouldn't need to calculate any revision numbers.