From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dan Nicolaescu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.comp.version-control.bazaar-ng.general Subject: Re: Emacs Bazaar repository Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:21:06 -0700 Message-ID: <200803140621.m2E6L7xg008954@sallyv1.ics.uci.edu> References: <87skyvse7k.fsf@xmission.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1205475856 19606 80.91.229.12 (14 Mar 2008 06:24:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:24:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Andreas Schwab , emacs-devel@gnu.org, bazaar@lists.canonical.com To: "Jonathan Lange" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 14 07:24:44 2008 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 4.50) id 1Ja3LN-0001zN-7K for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:24:41 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ja3Ko-0001Zs-0g for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 02:24:06 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ja3Kj-0001ZW-R0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 02:24:01 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ja3Ki-0001ZF-BG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 02:24:00 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ja3Ki-0001Z8-47 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 02:24:00 -0400 Original-Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ja3Kh-0005tI-OZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 02:23:59 -0400 Original-Received: from sallyv1.ics.uci.edu ([128.195.1.109]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ja3Kg-0007kZ-Px for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 02:23:59 -0400 X-ICS-MailScanner-Watermark: 1206080467.89113@gUXzkNj6fFEhF7n1d62HYw Original-Received: from mothra.ics.uci.edu (mothra.ics.uci.edu [128.195.6.93]) by sallyv1.ics.uci.edu (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7) with ESMTP id m2E6L7xg008954; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:21:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Jonathan Lange's message of "Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:52:23 +1100") Original-Lines: 26 X-ICS-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ICS-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-1.363, required 5, autolearn=disabled, ALL_TRUSTED -1.44, TW_BZ 0.08) X-ICS-MailScanner-From: dann@mothra.ics.uci.edu X-detected-kernel: by mx20.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:92487 gmane.comp.version-control.bazaar-ng.general:38523 Archived-At: "Jonathan Lange" writes: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > My first impression is that bzr is slow, so slow that it is completely > > unusable. How can it come that a simple bzr log takes more than a > > minute to even start? Even cvs log is instantaneous in comparison, > > although it has to request the log from the server. > > > > As I mentioned in an earlier post, 'bzr log' and 'cvs log' are doing > very different things. 'bzr log --line' is much closer to typical 'cvs > log' behaviour. It is not that close, "cvs log" shows the whole change long for each entry, not just a single line. For emacs we have very well written change logs, and if you look at them, you actually want to see the details. Is there a fast alternative that shows the whole entry, not just a single line? Also, is bzr status expected to be fast? bzr status FILENAME takes 1.2 seconds on a slow machine and .4 seconds on a fast one. Both numbers seem quite high.