From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: James Westby Newsgroups: gmane.comp.version-control.bazaar-ng.general,gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs Bazaar repository Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:44:38 +0000 Message-ID: <1205502278.6161.398.camel@flash> References: <87skyvse7k.fsf@xmission.com> <86ejae96t4.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <47DA3601.3040507@arbash-meinel.com> <85d4px4edd.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1205502210 5722 80.91.229.12 (14 Mar 2008 13:43:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:43:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bazaar@lists.canonical.com, Matthieu Moy , schwab@suse.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: bazaar-bounces@lists.canonical.com Fri Mar 14 14:43:58 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 1JaACS-0004id-2r for gcvbg-bazaar-ng@m.gmane.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:43:56 +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 1JaABr-00017L-BC; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:43:19 +0000 Original-Received: from jameswestby.net ([89.145.97.141]) by chlorine.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JaABp-00014X-S2 for bazaar@lists.canonical.com; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:43:18 +0000 Original-Received: from 77-99-12-164.cable.ubr13.azte.blueyonder.co.uk ([77.99.12.164] helo=[192.168.1.109]) by jameswestby.net with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JaABl-00061f-Rx; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:43:13 +0000 In-Reply-To: <85d4px4edd.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.0 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:38568 gmane.emacs.devel:92550 Archived-At: On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 14:35 +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > John Arbash Meinel writes: > > > The biggest reason 'bzr log' is slow is because we spend some time > > analyzing the ancestry to give a "pretty" view, while git/hg do not. > > git most certainly does. But it's analysis is different. It is doing something that has fewer constraints on the output that bzr log. You still end up with a list of revisions, but the ordering on bzr's is more complex to calculate. > > > Specifically, when you do "bzr log" we traverse the ancestry to figure > > out when revisions were merged, etc. > > What makes you think git doesn't? > I don't think John articulated his point as he would have liked there. > > I believe plain "git log" just starts outputting the revisions as it > > encounters them, and "hg log" also outputs them as they are stored. > > git has a large variety of options for selecting order and subset and > relation of what to output to the log. > However it doesn't have one that outputs them in the same order as bzr. > It is still fast, even while doing rename/copying detection on the fly. > It is fast, no-one is disagreeing with that. > > (I believe 'git log' defaults to showing the log based on a local sort > > by date. Neither one tries to figure out that A1 and A2 were merged > > into tip, which is another step that 'bzr log' does.) > > I suggest you actually check your beliefs against the actual program. > "The reason the other software is faster must be because it sucks in > comparison to ours." is a fallacy. git has been developed by a set of > kernel-savvy developers working on a large code base with a necessity > for high speed (Linus merges several hundred patches from different > repositories daily). > I'm sure that John did not intend to say that git "sucks", and I firmly believe that none of us believes that, and certainly no-one would argue that it is not faster than bzr. I think there are still criticisms of the UI, even though it has significantly improved recently. Thanks, James