* Official Git mirror? @ 2011-02-20 21:11 Oleksandr Gavenko (aka gavenkoa) 2011-02-20 21:35 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Oleksandr Gavenko (aka gavenkoa) @ 2011-02-20 21:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs As Bzr have network inefficient protocol I search for Git mirror. There are 2 page say about mirrors: http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/EmacsFromGit http://savannah.gnu.org/git/?group=emacs Seems that http://repo.or.cz/w/emacs.git and http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git both up-date. Which use and is they compatible? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Official Git mirror? 2011-02-20 21:11 Official Git mirror? Oleksandr Gavenko (aka gavenkoa) @ 2011-02-20 21:35 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-02-20 21:59 ` Oleksandr Gavenko (aka gavenkoa) ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-02-20 21:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs > From: "Oleksandr Gavenko (aka gavenkoa)" <gavenkoa@gmail.com> > Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:11:16 +0200 > > As Bzr have network inefficient protocol I search for Git mirror. Bzr is no less efficient than Git. If the initial checkout is slow, try one of these two, for the first "bzr branch" command only: bzr branch nosmart+bzr://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/emacs/trunk bzr branch lp:emacs Thereafter, just use bzr://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/emacs/trunk, it is fast for resyncing. > There are 2 page say about mirrors: > > http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/EmacsFromGit > http://savannah.gnu.org/git/?group=emacs > > Seems that > > http://repo.or.cz/w/emacs.git > > and > > http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git > > both up-date. > > Which use and is they compatible? They are all outdated by several hours (up to 1 day). You are well advised to use bzr instead. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Official Git mirror? 2011-02-20 21:35 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-02-20 21:59 ` Oleksandr Gavenko (aka gavenkoa) 2011-02-21 6:58 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-02-21 5:36 ` Óscar Fuentes [not found] ` <mailman.11.1298266625.16274.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> 2 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Oleksandr Gavenko (aka gavenkoa) @ 2011-02-20 21:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs On 20.02.2011 23:35, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: "Oleksandr Gavenko (aka gavenkoa)"<gavenkoa@gmail.com> >> Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:11:16 +0200 >> >> As Bzr have network inefficient protocol I search for Git mirror. > > Bzr is no less efficient than Git. If the initial checkout is slow, > try one of these two, for the first "bzr branch" command only: > > bzr branch nosmart+bzr://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/emacs/trunk > > bzr branch lp:emacs > > Thereafter, just use bzr://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/emacs/trunk, it is > fast for resyncing. > >> There are 2 page say about mirrors: >> >> http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/EmacsFromGit >> http://savannah.gnu.org/git/?group=emacs >> >> Seems that >> >> http://repo.or.cz/w/emacs.git >> >> and >> >> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git >> >> both up-date. >> >> Which use and is they compatible? > > They are all outdated by several hours (up to 1 day). You are well > advised to use bzr instead. > Can I update http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/EmacsFromGit by your text? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Official Git mirror? 2011-02-20 21:59 ` Oleksandr Gavenko (aka gavenkoa) @ 2011-02-21 6:58 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-02-21 23:29 ` Oleksandr Gavenko 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-02-21 6:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs > From: "Oleksandr Gavenko (aka gavenkoa)" <gavenkoa@gmail.com> > Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:59:16 +0200 > > Can I update http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/EmacsFromGit by your text? I already did. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Official Git mirror? 2011-02-21 6:58 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-02-21 23:29 ` Oleksandr Gavenko 2011-02-22 10:54 ` Eli Zaretskii [not found] ` <mailman.8.1298372068.26362.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> 0 siblings, 2 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Oleksandr Gavenko @ 2011-02-21 23:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs On 2011-02-21 6:58, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: "Oleksandr Gavenko (aka gavenkoa)"<gavenkoa@gmail.com> >> Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:59:16 +0200 >> >> Can I update http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/EmacsFromGit by your text? > > I already did. > I also worry about http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/EmacsFromGit (you update 'BzrForEmacsDevs' page). What is a status of git://git.savannah.gnu.org/emacs.git Note that link to it present on http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/emacs How frequency mirrors update: lp:emacs git://git.savannah.gnu.org/emacs.git git://repo.or.cz/emacs.git We hear in this thread that git repo outdated for about 1 day. How about Launchpad mirror? -- Best regards! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Official Git mirror? 2011-02-21 23:29 ` Oleksandr Gavenko @ 2011-02-22 10:54 ` Eli Zaretskii [not found] ` <mailman.8.1298372068.26362.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> 1 sibling, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-02-22 10:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs > From: Oleksandr Gavenko <gavenkoa@gmail.com> > Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:29:53 +0000 > > What is a status of git://git.savannah.gnu.org/emacs.git > Note that link to it present on http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/emacs It's a git mirror of the Emacs repository, intended for those who prefer to use git as their VCS. > How frequency mirrors update: > > lp:emacs > git://git.savannah.gnu.org/emacs.git > git://repo.or.cz/emacs.git > > We hear in this thread that git repo outdated for about 1 day. That is my experience, but I don't have any definitive answers. > How about Launchpad mirror? You will have to ask the maintainers of these sites. I have no idea. One thing is clear: they all fall behind the bzr repo by hours. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <mailman.8.1298372068.26362.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>]
* Re: Official Git mirror? [not found] ` <mailman.8.1298372068.26362.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> @ 2011-02-24 19:31 ` Vagn Johansen 2011-02-24 19:55 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Vagn Johansen @ 2011-02-24 19:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: >> What is a status of git://git.savannah.gnu.org/emacs.git >> Note that link to it present on http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/emacs > > It's a git mirror of the Emacs repository, intended for those who > prefer to use git as their VCS. Is there a recommended way of submitting patches when using the git mirror? etc/CONTRIBUTE has no describe this. -- Vagn Johansen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Official Git mirror? 2011-02-24 19:31 ` Vagn Johansen @ 2011-02-24 19:55 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-02-24 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs > From: Vagn Johansen <gonz808@hotmail.com> > Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:31:48 +0100 > > Is there a recommended way of submitting patches when using the git > mirror? A simple diff will do. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Official Git mirror? 2011-02-20 21:35 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-02-20 21:59 ` Oleksandr Gavenko (aka gavenkoa) @ 2011-02-21 5:36 ` Óscar Fuentes 2011-02-21 6:58 ` Leo 2011-02-21 7:58 ` Eli Zaretskii [not found] ` <mailman.11.1298266625.16274.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> 2 siblings, 2 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Óscar Fuentes @ 2011-02-21 5:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: >> From: "Oleksandr Gavenko (aka gavenkoa)" <gavenkoa@gmail.com> >> Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:11:16 +0200 >> >> As Bzr have network inefficient protocol I search for Git mirror. > > Bzr is no less efficient than Git. If the initial checkout is slow, > try one of these two, for the first "bzr branch" command only: > > bzr branch nosmart+bzr://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/emacs/trunk > > bzr branch lp:emacs oscar@qcore:~/dev/ff$ time bzr branch lp:emacs Branched 103368 revision(s). real 17m41.424s user 7m56.250s sys 0m8.240s oscar@qcore:~/dev/ff/git-emacs$ time git clone git://repo.or.cz/emacs.git git-emacs Initialized empty Git repository in /home/oscar/dev/ff/git-emacs/git-emacs/.git/ remote: Counting objects: 597983, done. remote: Compressing objects: 100% (122520/122520), done. remote: Total 597983 (delta 474994), reused 597778 (delta 474826) Receiving objects: 100% (597983/597983), 521.43 MiB | 1.00 MiB/s, done. Resolving deltas: 100% (474994/474994), done. real 11m42.616s user 2m36.630s sys 0m14.820s Please note that git downloads all 51 branches that exists or existed on Savannah while bzr gets just `trunk'. Git keeps the pipe downloading data at full speed all the time, while bzr fluctuates a lot, including several long pauses, possibly because the server is doing some CPU-intensive work for preparing the data. Maybe the differences are not big enough to notice by most people that update their Emacs mirrors from time to time, but it is not accurate to say that bzr's network protocol is no less efficient than git. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Official Git mirror? 2011-02-21 5:36 ` Óscar Fuentes @ 2011-02-21 6:58 ` Leo 2011-02-21 7:58 ` Eli Zaretskii 1 sibling, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Leo @ 2011-02-21 6:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs On 2011-02-21 13:36 +0800, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > Maybe the differences are not big enough to notice by most people that > update their Emacs mirrors from time to time, but it is not accurate to > say that bzr's network protocol is no less efficient than git. Thanks for the excellent data points. Leo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Official Git mirror? 2011-02-21 5:36 ` Óscar Fuentes 2011-02-21 6:58 ` Leo @ 2011-02-21 7:58 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-02-21 16:09 ` Óscar Fuentes 1 sibling, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-02-21 7:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs > From: Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> > Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 06:36:48 +0100 > > Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: > > >> From: "Oleksandr Gavenko (aka gavenkoa)" <gavenkoa@gmail.com> > >> Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:11:16 +0200 > >> > >> As Bzr have network inefficient protocol I search for Git mirror. > > > > Bzr is no less efficient than Git. If the initial checkout is slow, > > try one of these two, for the first "bzr branch" command only: > > > > bzr branch nosmart+bzr://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/emacs/trunk > > > > bzr branch lp:emacs > > oscar@qcore:~/dev/ff$ time bzr branch lp:emacs > Branched 103368 revision(s). > real 17m41.424s > user 7m56.250s > sys 0m8.240s > > oscar@qcore:~/dev/ff/git-emacs$ time git clone git://repo.or.cz/emacs.git git-emacs > Initialized empty Git repository in /home/oscar/dev/ff/git-emacs/git-emacs/.git/ > remote: Counting objects: 597983, done. > remote: Compressing objects: 100% (122520/122520), done. > remote: Total 597983 (delta 474994), reused 597778 (delta 474826) > Receiving objects: 100% (597983/597983), 521.43 MiB | 1.00 MiB/s, done. > Resolving deltas: 100% (474994/474994), done. > real 11m42.616s > user 2m36.630s > sys 0m14.820s I don't think 11 min are significantly better than 17. Seems like a good price to pay for being always in sync with the repository. And this is just the initial checkout, the differences get even smaller for routine day-to-day operation. Yours is just one example, I get almost the same times, and sometimes slightly faster times for bzr than for git. Here's one example where I got the same times: bzr: real 0m14.437s user 0m2.516s sys 0m0.308s git: real 13m59.655s user 7m55.702s sys 0m18.321s Btw, what is your bzr version? You could get faster downloads with the latest versions (2.2+). > Please note that git downloads all 51 branches that exists or existed on > Savannah while bzr gets just `trunk'. Most people don't need the other branches, so it's just ballast. > Git keeps the pipe downloading data at full speed all the time, while > bzr fluctuates a lot, including several long pauses, possibly because > the server is doing some CPU-intensive work for preparing the data. The nosmart+ option prevents the server from wasting CPU cycles when everything is needed to be downloaded anyway. > Maybe the differences are not big enough to notice by most people that > update their Emacs mirrors from time to time, but it is not accurate to > say that bzr's network protocol is no less efficient than git. I did testing on several machines, and the average is almost the same, in terms of elapsed time. On some machines, git is slightly faster, on others it's the other way around. And I doubt that many people care about the trade-off between CPU, file I/O, and network I/O. The OP was talking about the network protocol, but I'm quite sure he actually cares about the elapsed time of the initial download. Bottom line: I'd advise using bzr, because the advantages of using the same tool as the Emacs developers (same revision IDs etc.) outweigh the disadvantages of a slightly slower operation, even on GNU/Linux. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Official Git mirror? 2011-02-21 7:58 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-02-21 16:09 ` Óscar Fuentes 2011-02-21 18:56 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Óscar Fuentes @ 2011-02-21 16:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: > I don't think 11 min are significantly better than 17. Seems like a > good price to pay for being always in sync with the repository. And > this is just the initial checkout, the differences get even smaller > for routine day-to-day operation. > > Yours is just one example, I get almost the same times, and sometimes > slightly faster times for bzr than for git. Here's one example where > I got the same times: > > bzr: > real 0m14.437s > user 0m2.516s > sys 0m0.308s > > git: > real 13m59.655s > user 7m55.702s > sys 0m18.321s The times quoted above seems wrong (0m14s for bzr?) > Btw, what is your bzr version? You could get faster downloads with > the latest versions (2.2+). 2.2.1 >> Please note that git downloads all 51 branches that exists or existed on >> Savannah while bzr gets just `trunk'. > > Most people don't need the other branches, so it's just ballast. I have no issues with your recommendation of using bzr. I'm discussing your assertion about bzr protocol's efficiency compared to git. >> Git keeps the pipe downloading data at full speed all the time, while >> bzr fluctuates a lot, including several long pauses, possibly because >> the server is doing some CPU-intensive work for preparing the data. > > The nosmart+ option prevents the server from wasting CPU cycles when > everything is needed to be downloaded anyway. Then the question is: why is it not enabled by default when bzr clones a branch from scratch? >> Maybe the differences are not big enough to notice by most people that >> update their Emacs mirrors from time to time, but it is not accurate to >> say that bzr's network protocol is no less efficient than git. > > I did testing on several machines, and the average is almost the same, > in terms of elapsed time. On some machines, git is slightly faster, > on others it's the other way around. Bzr is quite CPU- and memory-intensive, to the point of being almost unbearable when cloning a large branch (i.e. Emacs) on a netbook. Maybe the machines that work faster for you are the more powerful ones? > And I doubt that many people care about the trade-off between CPU, > file I/O, and network I/O. The OP was talking about the network > protocol, but I'm quite sure he actually cares about the elapsed time > of the initial download. Agreed. > Bottom line: I'd advise using bzr, because the advantages of using the > same tool as the Emacs developers (same revision IDs etc.) outweigh > the disadvantages of a slightly slower operation, even on GNU/Linux. Agreed too, except for the case where the user is already familiar with git and wants to keep local changes or do experimental hacking. Apart from differences on workflow and performance, whose value may be subjetive, developing with emacs+git is a very pleasant experience thanks to packages like magit.el and others. Bzr still has a long path to walk on terms of Emacs integration. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Official Git mirror? 2011-02-21 16:09 ` Óscar Fuentes @ 2011-02-21 18:56 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-02-21 20:08 ` Óscar Fuentes 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-02-21 18:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Óscar Fuentes; +Cc: help-gnu-emacs > From: Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> > Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:09:03 +0100 > > > bzr: > > real 0m14.437s > > user 0m2.516s > > sys 0m0.308s > > > > git: > > real 13m59.655s > > user 7m55.702s > > sys 0m18.321s > > The times quoted above seems wrong (0m14s for bzr?) Yes, sorry. A copy/paste error. I remembered one of my trials took 14 min. > I have no issues with your recommendation of using bzr. I'm discussing > your assertion about bzr protocol's efficiency compared to git. I didn't assert that, at least didn't mean to. I interpreted the OP's complaint as referring to the elapsed time it takes, and answered that. Sorry if my wording was misleading. > >> Git keeps the pipe downloading data at full speed all the time, while > >> bzr fluctuates a lot, including several long pauses, possibly because > >> the server is doing some CPU-intensive work for preparing the data. > > > > The nosmart+ option prevents the server from wasting CPU cycles when > > everything is needed to be downloaded anyway. > > Then the question is: why is it not enabled by default when bzr clones a > branch from scratch? I don't think the Bazaar developers saw this kind of data until now. You will see a discussion about this on the Bazaar mailing list. I hope they will find a solution soon. I also hope the server on savannah will be upgraded to something similar to Launchpad. > Bzr is quite CPU- and memory-intensive, to the point of being almost > unbearable when cloning a large branch (i.e. Emacs) on a netbook. That's not true, at least not wrt CPU. Your own data refutes this: real 17m41.424s user 7m56.250s sys 0m8.240s Here are a few of my data points, with different machines and different network bandwidths: real 49m17.067s user 14m36.890s sys 0m14.250s real 01h04m01.629s user 00h20m54.484s sys 00h00m57.046s real 01h10m09.873s user 00h40m22.046s sys 00h05m36.921s real 16m30.189s user 15m22.090s sys 0m14.560s real 02h28m35.032s user 00h20m36.921s sys 00h00m50.750s real 30m23.956s user 11m33.760s sys 0m17.730s In all but one case, the CPU time is 1/3 to 1/7 of the elapsed time. That's not how a CPU-bound app looks like. > Maybe the machines that work faster for you are the more powerful > ones? No, they are on faster networks. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Official Git mirror? 2011-02-21 18:56 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-02-21 20:08 ` Óscar Fuentes 0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Óscar Fuentes @ 2011-02-21 20:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: [snip] >> Bzr is quite CPU- and memory-intensive, to the point of being almost >> unbearable when cloning a large branch (i.e. Emacs) on a netbook. > > That's not true, at least not wrt CPU. Your own data refutes this: > > real 17m41.424s > user 7m56.250s > sys 0m8.240s First: that's on a fast desktop machine. My experience says that the netbook (currently unavailable) on the same network will take 6 times more CPU time. I recall having to copy the bzr Emacs repository from the desktop machine to the netbook (instead of cloning it with bzr) after waiting for more than an hour and losing patience. That was on the local network. Second: bzr is downloading approx. 450 MB over a 1 MB/s ADSL line. On the best case it would take 7.5 minutes (it takes 9.8). For this specific case of cloning the bzr emacs repo on Launchpad, saying that it is mostly network-bound is accurate, but not by much. As soon as you start using a slightly faster network or a slower machine the CPU time dominates. > Here are a few of my data points, with different machines and > different network bandwidths: [snip] > In all but one case, the CPU time is 1/3 to 1/7 of the elapsed time. > That's not how a CPU-bound app looks like. Without precise specs of the machines and networks for each timing, it is hard to interpret those results. >> Maybe the machines that work faster for you are the more powerful >> ones? > > No, they are on faster networks. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <mailman.11.1298266625.16274.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>]
* Re: Official Git mirror? [not found] ` <mailman.11.1298266625.16274.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> @ 2011-02-21 8:52 ` Tim X 2011-02-21 14:31 ` Official Git mirror? -- Request Perry Smith 2011-02-21 18:17 ` Official Git mirror? Óscar Fuentes 0 siblings, 2 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Tim X @ 2011-02-21 8:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> writes: > Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: > >>> From: "Oleksandr Gavenko (aka gavenkoa)" <gavenkoa@gmail.com> >>> Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:11:16 +0200 >>> >>> As Bzr have network inefficient protocol I search for Git mirror. >> >> Bzr is no less efficient than Git. If the initial checkout is slow, >> try one of these two, for the first "bzr branch" command only: >> >> bzr branch nosmart+bzr://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/emacs/trunk >> >> bzr branch lp:emacs > > oscar@qcore:~/dev/ff$ time bzr branch lp:emacs > Branched 103368 revision(s). > real 17m41.424s > user 7m56.250s > sys 0m8.240s > > oscar@qcore:~/dev/ff/git-emacs$ time git clone git://repo.or.cz/emacs.git git-emacs > Initialized empty Git repository in /home/oscar/dev/ff/git-emacs/git-emacs/.git/ > remote: Counting objects: 597983, done. > remote: Compressing objects: 100% (122520/122520), done. > remote: Total 597983 (delta 474994), reused 597778 (delta 474826) > Receiving objects: 100% (597983/597983), 521.43 MiB | 1.00 MiB/s, done. > Resolving deltas: 100% (474994/474994), done. > real 11m42.616s > user 2m36.630s > sys 0m14.820s > > > Please note that git downloads all 51 branches that exists or existed on > Savannah while bzr gets just `trunk'. > > Git keeps the pipe downloading data at full speed all the time, while > bzr fluctuates a lot, including several long pauses, possibly because > the server is doing some CPU-intensive work for preparing the data. > > Maybe the differences are not big enough to notice by most people that > update their Emacs mirrors from time to time, but it is not accurate to > say that bzr's network protocol is no less efficient than git. > > Such comparisons are meaingless. There are two many variables not accounted for, such as network, server load, client/server versions and even differences in repositories. However, what really matters is the updates rather than a fresh full branching/cloning as you only do the long initial copy once. Personally, I prefer git, but use bzr just as much as a number of projects I work on use bzr. I've found the initial checkouts to be fairly close and later updates to also be about the same. If you setup things according to the instructions on the emacs wiki for bzr, creating a new branch copy is extremely fast. For example tcross@puma:~/bzr/emacs$ time bzr branch http://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/r/emacs/trunk/ new Branched 103370 revision(s). real 0m44.743s user 0m3.800s sys 0m0.400s which created a fresh new branch to work on. My preference for git is that it just fits how I think and my preferred workflow over bzr. However, functionally, I find them pretty much equivalent. The real point to note, as mentioned by Eli, is that the git repositories are frequently hours behind bzr. As we are talking about development sources, this can be important. There are a number of times I've updated only to find that the current snapshot either fails to build or has a bug. However, this is usually fixed very quickly. In fact, this happened to me last week. I reported the problem on the dev list and it was fixed within about an hour. With the git copy, you may have to wait a day to get that update. In fact, there was a post just after mine from someone using git who ran into the same problem. The response he got was that he had to wait 24 hours until his git master was updated. If you ever run into issues and want to raise/discuss them on the dev list, you will also get better results if your based on the bzr branch as people don't know if your being affected by a bug which may have already been fixed in bzr but has not yet been copied over to git. Consequently, the common response is to tell someone to wait 24 hours, update and see if the bug still exists, if it does, come back and raise it again. For example, the current git version is commit 0cc4633247929de05e1ae58cea225137074764c0 Author: Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> Date: Sun Feb 20 11:46:08 2011 -0800 while the current bzr revision is revno: 103370 committer: Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com> branch nick: trunk timestamp: Mon 2011-02-21 01:03:36 -0500 and there is a difference of 5 commits between the two. Given the typical difference in refresh/update times between git and bzr are minimal, I think its worth sticking with bzr. If you ever plan to contribute bug fixes or other code, bzr will also be a better way to go as your patches will likely be better accepted or you may even be able to push changes up to get them merged in etc. While this is still possible with git, it is a bit harder - anything that makes things easier is more likely to increase the likelihood your contributions are accepted. Reporting issues is easier as well as you have the bzr revno readily available. Of course it all comes down to what you want and what you expect to do. If all you want is a fairly up-to-date version of the dev code and you don't plan to work on bugs, report problems or participate in development, then the git clone is probably fine. However, if you plan to work on bugs/submissions, participate in development etc, bzr is really the only sane choice. Tim -- tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Official Git mirror? -- Request 2011-02-21 8:52 ` Tim X @ 2011-02-21 14:31 ` Perry Smith 2011-02-21 14:57 ` andrea crotti 2011-02-21 18:17 ` Official Git mirror? Óscar Fuentes 1 sibling, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Perry Smith @ 2011-02-21 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tim X; +Cc: help-gnu-emacs On Feb 21, 2011, at 2:52 AM, Tim X wrote: > Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> writes: > >> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: >> >>>> From: "Oleksandr Gavenko (aka gavenkoa)" <gavenkoa@gmail.com> >>>> Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:11:16 +0200 >>>> I wish folks would pick one SCM and stick with it. Porting the SCM to AIX just so I can check out some project is a pain. There seems to be at least a half dozen SCMs right now. They all do exactly the same thing. Why are so many people recreating the exact same wheel? The current nightmare of SCMs makes me dream of the old days when everyone used SVN. Any chance GNU could pick git or the git folks pick bzr? pedz ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Official Git mirror? -- Request 2011-02-21 14:31 ` Official Git mirror? -- Request Perry Smith @ 2011-02-21 14:57 ` andrea crotti 0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: andrea crotti @ 2011-02-21 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Perry Smith; +Cc: help-gnu-emacs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 957 bytes --] 2011/2/21 Perry Smith <pedzsan@gmail.com> > > > I wish folks would pick one SCM and stick with it. Porting the SCM to > AIX just so I can check out some project is a pain. There seems to be > at least a half dozen SCMs right now. They all do exactly the same > thing. Why are so many people recreating the exact same wheel? The > current nightmare of SCMs makes me dream of the old days when everyone > used SVN. > > Any chance GNU could pick git or the git folks pick > bzr? > > pedz > > > I agree that it's really a mess, and not mentioning mercurial/darcs and others, but I don't agree on missing SVN ;) The thing is that everyone is more productive with what uses most of the time (I use git for example), and maybe there are also some "political" reasons behind the adoption of one or the other. SVN was not too bad for that, it could be used as a backend and then anyone could work with git/svn whatever. But it's surely not the optimal path. [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1304 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Official Git mirror? 2011-02-21 8:52 ` Tim X 2011-02-21 14:31 ` Official Git mirror? -- Request Perry Smith @ 2011-02-21 18:17 ` Óscar Fuentes 2011-02-21 19:02 ` Eli Zaretskii 1 sibling, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Óscar Fuentes @ 2011-02-21 18:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs Tim X <timx@nospam.dev.null> writes: >> Maybe the differences are not big enough to notice by most people that >> update their Emacs mirrors from time to time, but it is not accurate to >> say that bzr's network protocol is no less efficient than git. > > Such comparisons are meaingless. There are two many variables not > accounted for, such as network, server load, client/server versions and > even differences in repositories. Okay, let's repeat the experiment on a controlled environment. LAN 100 Mb/s, idle. A quad-core 2.4GHz Q6600 machine with 8 GB RAM, Kubuntu 10.10 64 bits (let's call this machine `qcore') A single-core single-thread Pentium M 2.0GHz with 2 GB RAM, Kubuntu 10.10 32 bits (let's name this one `single') git version 1.7.1 bzr version 2.2.1 real / user / sys git ssh://qcore (from single) 5m34s 4m28s 0m27s bzr nosmart+bzr://qcore (from single) 9m54s 9m21s 0m9s bzr bzr://qcore (from single) 7m37s 6m15s 0m8s git ssh://single (from qcore) 2m50s 2m23s 0m7s bzr nosmart+bzr://single (from qcore) 6m47s 6m27s 0m3s bzr bzr://single (from qcore) 6m24s 4m17s 0m3s On all cases the operation seems CPU-bound on the *client*. Git shows a CPU spike on the server at the beginning, on the "counting objects" phase. The Bzr server shows no significant CPU usage when connected with the "nosmart" option. Else it pegs one CPU core for a large part of the phase where revisions are sent, and uses up to 1.5 GB of RAM for a short moment, although most of the time it is about 400 MB (on the 64bit machine). Neither bzr nor git clients seems to exploit the multiple cores while cloning. The bzr client uses a lot of memory (almost 600 MB on the 64 bit machine, almost 400 on the 32 bits machine.) It seems that "nosmart" is used for compensating for servers with busy CPUs at the cost of more data sent to the client and more work offloaded to it. > However, what really matters is the updates rather than a fresh full > branching/cloning as you only do the long initial copy once. We are discussing protocol efficiency. It is reasonable to expect that any shortcoming on the cloning process will show in the update operation. Moreover, on the timings I used an special case for bzr (nosmart) that may tilt the results to its favor if we extrapolate the results to update operations. My experience updating emacs bzr from Launchpad (with the smart protocol) is that it is noticeably slower than updating emacs git from repo.or.cz. (To address just one factor, network latency is important on short operations, but pinging to repo.or.cz is 50% slower than pinging to launchpad.net from here.) > Personally, I prefer git, but use bzr just as much as a number of > projects I work on use bzr. I've found the initial checkouts to be > fairly close and later updates to also be about the same. I guess that your anecdotal experience is as good as mine. [snip] > The real point to note, as mentioned by Eli, is that the git repositories > are frequently hours behind bzr. That's a different issue. No discussion about that. [snip] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Official Git mirror? 2011-02-21 18:17 ` Official Git mirror? Óscar Fuentes @ 2011-02-21 19:02 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-02-21 19:40 ` Óscar Fuentes 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-02-21 19:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Óscar Fuentes; +Cc: help-gnu-emacs > From: Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> > Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:17:28 +0100 > > It seems that "nosmart" is used for compensating for servers with busy > CPUs No, it's used to compensate for overly "smart" server when there's no win in being smart, because you need to send everything anyway. The "smart" part is for sending less data, which is not going to win for the initial checkout. > at the cost of more data sent to the client and more work offloaded > to it. The data ratio is 5.5:7.2, so it is indeed larger, but not awfully so. As for CPU, I wrote elsewhere that the client doesn't need too much for the initial checkout. > We are discussing protocol efficiency. It is reasonable to expect that > any shortcoming on the cloning process will show in the update > operation. I don't see that in my work. Updates are of comparable speed, although bzr indeed typically pulls more data through the wire. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Official Git mirror? 2011-02-21 19:02 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-02-21 19:40 ` Óscar Fuentes 2011-02-21 20:33 ` Eli Zaretskii [not found] ` <mailman.11.1298320422.21303.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> 0 siblings, 2 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Óscar Fuentes @ 2011-02-21 19:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: >> It seems that "nosmart" is used for compensating for servers with busy >> CPUs > > No, it's used to compensate for overly "smart" server when there's no > win in being smart, because you need to send everything anyway. But then the plan is failing, because the timings I posted show that "smart" wins over "nosmart" even when a weak server is servicing a mighty client over a fast network. > The "smart" part is for sending less data, which is not going to win > for the initial checkout. You said on the other post that cloning time is network-bound. So being smart and sending less data would be better. [snip] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Official Git mirror? 2011-02-21 19:40 ` Óscar Fuentes @ 2011-02-21 20:33 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-02-21 20:57 ` Óscar Fuentes [not found] ` <mailman.11.1298320422.21303.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-02-21 20:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs > From: Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> > Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 20:40:37 +0100 > > Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: > > >> It seems that "nosmart" is used for compensating for servers with busy > >> CPUs > > > > No, it's used to compensate for overly "smart" server when there's no > > win in being smart, because you need to send everything anyway. > > But then the plan is failing, because the timings I posted show that > "smart" wins over "nosmart" even when a weak server is servicing a > mighty client over a fast network. Sometimes it indeed makes no significant difference, but sometimes it wins big time. Observe: bzr://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/emacs/trunk real 45m4.820s user 15m58.380s sys 0m12.910s Transferred: 540480KiB (199.9K/s r:540403K w:77K) bzr branch nosmart+bzr://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/emacs/trunk real 16m30.189s user 15m22.090s sys 0m14.560s Transferred: 780914KiB (789.2K/s r:780640K w:275K) In the thread I mentioned on the Bazaar list, someone else also reported a huge speedup: > over a 3 Mbit/s connection: > > bzr://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/emacs/trunk > 6949.356 Transferred: 469739kB (67.6kB/s r:469659kB w:80kB) > > nosmart+bzr://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/emacs/trunk > 2919.117 Transferred: 524353kB (179.7kB/s r:524162kB w:191kB) That's almost 2 hours slashed to 48 minutes, an almost 3-fold speedup. > > The "smart" part is for sending less data, which is not going to win > > for the initial checkout. > > You said on the other post that cloning time is network-bound. So being > smart and sending less data would be better. Not if "being smart" wastes CPU cycles on the server side and causes it to use the available bandwidth less efficiently. See the network throughput figures above, reported by bzr on .bzr.log. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Official Git mirror? 2011-02-21 20:33 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-02-21 20:57 ` Óscar Fuentes 2011-02-21 21:15 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Óscar Fuentes @ 2011-02-21 20:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: >> But then the plan is failing, because the timings I posted show that >> "smart" wins over "nosmart" even when a weak server is servicing a >> mighty client over a fast network. > > Sometimes it indeed makes no significant difference, but sometimes it > wins big time. Observe: > > bzr://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/emacs/trunk > > real 45m4.820s > user 15m58.380s > sys 0m12.910s > > Transferred: 540480KiB (199.9K/s r:540403K w:77K) > > bzr branch nosmart+bzr://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/emacs/trunk > > > real 16m30.189s > user 15m22.090s > sys 0m14.560s > > Transferred: 780914KiB (789.2K/s r:780640K w:275K) > > In the thread I mentioned on the Bazaar list, someone else also > reported a huge speedup: > >> over a 3 Mbit/s connection: >> >> bzr://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/emacs/trunk >> 6949.356 Transferred: 469739kB (67.6kB/s r:469659kB w:80kB) >> >> nosmart+bzr://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/emacs/trunk >> 2919.117 Transferred: 524353kB (179.7kB/s r:524162kB w:191kB) > > That's almost 2 hours slashed to 48 minutes, an almost 3-fold speedup. > >> > The "smart" part is for sending less data, which is not going to win >> > for the initial checkout. >> >> You said on the other post that cloning time is network-bound. So being >> smart and sending less data would be better. > > Not if "being smart" wastes CPU cycles on the server side and causes > it to use the available bandwidth less efficiently. See the network > throughput figures above, reported by bzr on .bzr.log. Eli, I re-quote what you said: Oscar: >> >> It seems that "nosmart" is used for compensating for servers with busy >> >> CPUs Eli: >> > No, it's used to compensate for overly "smart" server when there's no >> > win in being smart, because you need to send everything anyway. You are contradicting yourself, because your data above is more evidence supporting my hypotheses of nosmart being a tricky effective with CPU-starved servers. Besides, cloning from Savannah is almost twice as slow than from Launchpad for me. If it is because network distance considerations (pinging to it is 3 times slower than to Launchpad) or because the server is CPU and/or bandwidth starved, I don't know. Your timings comparing smart/nosmart seem to point to the CPU, though. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Official Git mirror? 2011-02-21 20:57 ` Óscar Fuentes @ 2011-02-21 21:15 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-02-21 21:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs > From: Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> > Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:57:30 +0100 > > >> > The "smart" part is for sending less data, which is not going to win > >> > for the initial checkout. > >> > >> You said on the other post that cloning time is network-bound. So being > >> smart and sending less data would be better. > > > > Not if "being smart" wastes CPU cycles on the server side and causes > > it to use the available bandwidth less efficiently. See the network > > throughput figures above, reported by bzr on .bzr.log. > > Eli, I re-quote what you said: > > Oscar: > >> >> It seems that "nosmart" is used for compensating for servers with busy > >> >> CPUs > Eli: > >> > No, it's used to compensate for overly "smart" server when there's no > >> > win in being smart, because you need to send everything anyway. > > You are contradicting yourself, because your data above is more evidence > supporting my hypotheses of nosmart being a tricky effective with > CPU-starved servers. I see no contradiction. The smart server uses more CPU on the server side, and by that causes large gaps in sending data, while it "thinks" what to send next. When it needs to send hundreds of MBs, this adds up to many minutes. And in the initial checkout case, the invested CPU time goes to waste anyway, because there's no way of being "smart" when you need to send all the data downstream. As an example, look at the "Finding revisions" stage, the first stage of "bzr branch". It takes less than a minute with "nosmart", and around 20 min (!) with a "smart" server. It tries to be smart about which revisions to send, only to discover that it eventually needs to send everything. IOW, the "smart server" should be made aware that this is an initial checkout into a fresh repository. I guess this was not done yet because for small projects the slowdown is barely visible. > Besides, cloning from Savannah is almost twice as slow than from > Launchpad for me. If it is because network distance considerations > (pinging to it is 3 times slower than to Launchpad) or because the > server is CPU and/or bandwidth starved, I don't know. Your timings > comparing smart/nosmart seem to point to the CPU, though. Launchpad is faster because its server is a newer bzr than that on Savannah. I'm not sure if the network bandwidth is also a factor here, but it could be. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <mailman.11.1298320422.21303.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>]
* Re: Official Git mirror? [not found] ` <mailman.11.1298320422.21303.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> @ 2011-02-23 9:16 ` Giorgos Keramidas 2011-02-23 12:32 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Giorgos Keramidas @ 2011-02-23 9:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 22:33:23 +0200, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote: > Sometimes it indeed makes no significant difference, but sometimes it > wins big time. Observe: > > bzr://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/emacs/trunk > > real 45m4.820s > user 15m58.380s > sys 0m12.910s > > Transferred: 540480KiB (199.9K/s r:540403K w:77K) > > bzr branch nosmart+bzr://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/emacs/trunk > > > real 16m30.189s > user 15m22.090s > sys 0m14.560s > > Transferred: 780914KiB (789.2K/s r:780640K w:275K) I started a new 'bzr branch' this morning, when I got to the office, using the nosmart option. It's been running for more than an hour now, it has transferred 500 MB of data, and all this on a laptop running Ubuntu 10.10 LTS with ample free disk space and connected to the very fast internal network of Google. This is a *lot* of data for something that is supposed to fetch only the trunk of Emacs. It took 3989.501 real / 581.270 user / 15.990 sys seconds to fetch everything and the resulting .bzr/ directory contains 233 MB of data: gkeramidas@gkeramidas-glaptop:~/bzr/trunk$ du -sh .bzr/ 233M .bzr/ This is not very fast, but I'll keep using the bzr branch to see how future updates go. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Official Git mirror? 2011-02-23 9:16 ` Giorgos Keramidas @ 2011-02-23 12:32 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-02-23 19:38 ` jun yu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-02-23 12:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs > From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> > Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help > Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:16:10 +0100 > > I started a new 'bzr branch' this morning, when I got to the office, > using the nosmart option. It's been running for more than an hour now, > it has transferred 500 MB of data, and all this on a laptop running > Ubuntu 10.10 LTS with ample free disk space and connected to the very > fast internal network of Google. Like I said, the nosmart operation moves about 780MB of data on the initial "bzr branch" command. The resulting branch directory is around 690MB. With git, I get 632MB and 780MB respectively (but that includes all the branches, so it should be larger). > This is a *lot* of data for something that is supposed to fetch only the > trunk of Emacs. The trunk (or, actually, the first branch you download into a shared repository) brings in the bulk of the revision history. Additional branches are mush smaller and their checkouts are much faster, because they share a lot of revisions with the trunk, and "bzr branch" then brings only the revisions that are not on the trunk. Try another branch command for emacs-23, for example. > It took 3989.501 real / 581.270 user / 15.990 sys > seconds to fetch everything and the resulting .bzr/ directory contains > 233 MB of data: > > gkeramidas@gkeramidas-glaptop:~/bzr/trunk$ du -sh .bzr/ > 233M .bzr/ About an hour is what we can get now, yes (I got as little as 16 min, but that was on a system sitting on the same LAN as bzr.savannah.gnu.org; otherwise, I get between 0:45 and 1:10). > This is not very fast, but I'll keep using the bzr branch to see how > future updates go. Please don't forget NOT to use nosmart+ after the initial branch command. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Official Git mirror? 2011-02-23 12:32 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-02-23 19:38 ` jun yu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: jun yu @ 2011-02-23 19:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: help-gnu-emacs I think git that is more quickly. 2011/2/23 Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>: >> From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> >> Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help >> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:16:10 +0100 >> >> I started a new 'bzr branch' this morning, when I got to the office, >> using the nosmart option. It's been running for more than an hour now, >> it has transferred 500 MB of data, and all this on a laptop running >> Ubuntu 10.10 LTS with ample free disk space and connected to the very >> fast internal network of Google. > > Like I said, the nosmart operation moves about 780MB of data on the > initial "bzr branch" command. The resulting branch directory is > around 690MB. With git, I get 632MB and 780MB respectively (but that > includes all the branches, so it should be larger). > >> This is a *lot* of data for something that is supposed to fetch only the >> trunk of Emacs. > > The trunk (or, actually, the first branch you download into a shared > repository) brings in the bulk of the revision history. Additional > branches are mush smaller and their checkouts are much faster, because > they share a lot of revisions with the trunk, and "bzr branch" then > brings only the revisions that are not on the trunk. Try another > branch command for emacs-23, for example. > >> It took 3989.501 real / 581.270 user / 15.990 sys >> seconds to fetch everything and the resulting .bzr/ directory contains >> 233 MB of data: >> >> gkeramidas@gkeramidas-glaptop:~/bzr/trunk$ du -sh .bzr/ >> 233M .bzr/ > > About an hour is what we can get now, yes (I got as little as 16 min, > but that was on a system sitting on the same LAN as > bzr.savannah.gnu.org; otherwise, I get between 0:45 and 1:10). > >> This is not very fast, but I'll keep using the bzr branch to see how >> future updates go. > > Please don't forget NOT to use nosmart+ after the initial branch > command. > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-02-24 19:55 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 26+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2011-02-20 21:11 Official Git mirror? Oleksandr Gavenko (aka gavenkoa) 2011-02-20 21:35 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-02-20 21:59 ` Oleksandr Gavenko (aka gavenkoa) 2011-02-21 6:58 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-02-21 23:29 ` Oleksandr Gavenko 2011-02-22 10:54 ` Eli Zaretskii [not found] ` <mailman.8.1298372068.26362.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> 2011-02-24 19:31 ` Vagn Johansen 2011-02-24 19:55 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-02-21 5:36 ` Óscar Fuentes 2011-02-21 6:58 ` Leo 2011-02-21 7:58 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-02-21 16:09 ` Óscar Fuentes 2011-02-21 18:56 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-02-21 20:08 ` Óscar Fuentes [not found] ` <mailman.11.1298266625.16274.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> 2011-02-21 8:52 ` Tim X 2011-02-21 14:31 ` Official Git mirror? -- Request Perry Smith 2011-02-21 14:57 ` andrea crotti 2011-02-21 18:17 ` Official Git mirror? Óscar Fuentes 2011-02-21 19:02 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-02-21 19:40 ` Óscar Fuentes 2011-02-21 20:33 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-02-21 20:57 ` Óscar Fuentes 2011-02-21 21:15 ` Eli Zaretskii [not found] ` <mailman.11.1298320422.21303.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> 2011-02-23 9:16 ` Giorgos Keramidas 2011-02-23 12:32 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-02-23 19:38 ` jun yu
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).