From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Ingamells Newsgroups: gmane.comp.version-control.bazaar-ng.general,gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs Bazaar repository Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:42:16 +0100 Message-ID: <47DA72A8.8010807@mapscape.eu> References: <8562053f49b38b1584b86e1e4d1ec6e6, vpqbq5htrwx.fsf@bauges.imag.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1205498556 24491 80.91.229.12 (14 Mar 2008 12:42:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:42:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Andreas Schwab , David Kastrup , emacs-devel@gnu.org, bazaar@lists.canonical.com To: Matthieu Moy Original-X-From: bazaar-bounces@lists.canonical.com Fri Mar 14 13:43:03 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 1Ja9FV-0007vS-HX for gcvbg-bazaar-ng@m.gmane.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:43:01 +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 1Ja9Ew-0000G7-8f; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:42:26 +0000 Original-Received: from secure-mail-1.signet.nl ([217.21.241.16]) by chlorine.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ja9Es-0000Fc-2G for bazaar@lists.canonical.com; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:42:22 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by secure-mail-1.signet.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC526267AA5; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:42:22 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from secure-mail-1.signet.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (secure-mail-1.signet.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ANHOc-wrJChb; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:42:20 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from mszaraf01.mapscape.eu (unknown [80.255.255.221]) by secure-mail-1.signet.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0463267A70; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:42:20 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from [10.57.3.102] (unknown [10.57.3.102]) by mszaraf01.mapscape.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7C1B1C705AC; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:42:14 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071008) In-Reply-To: <8562053f49b38b1584b86e1e4d1ec6e6, vpqbq5htrwx.fsf@bauges.imag.fr> 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:38557 gmane.emacs.devel:92537 Archived-At: Matthieu Moy wrote: > Andreas Schwab writes: > > >> Matthieu Moy writes: >> >> >>> That said, the time for bzr log to start should clearly not be _that_ >>> long. I suspect it's done on a light checkout (therefore needing >>> network access), which git can't do at all for example. >>> >> There is definitely no network access involved, it is almost 100% CPU >> time. >> > > Yes, right. Just reproduced here (perhaps with a faster machine than > yours) : > > $ time bzr log | head -1 > ------------------------------------------------------------ > bzr log 21.17s user 0.28s system 99% cpu 21.578 total > head -1 0.00s user 0.00s system 0% cpu 21.523 total > $ bzr --version > Bazaar (bzr) 1.3.0.dev.0 > [...] > $ bzr info > Standalone tree (format: pack-0.92) > [...] > > While on the git repo for Emacs, > > $ time git log | head -1 > commit 04eb7b6c65c8ec7550afb9cf317f51a1470f947c > git log 0.00s user 0.00s system 64% cpu 0.012 total > head -1 0.00s user 0.00s system 34% cpu 0.012 total > > Similarly, I tested a commit touching a single file (echo foo >> > README), it takes 17 seconds with bzr, and 0.08 seconds with git. > > A small note of "warning" regarding such timing comparisons. make sure you are not comparing apples and oranges. When we were choosing a new CMS tool I did a similar comparison between mercurial and bazaar, which mercurial won easily until I discovered why: mercurial first uses time stamps to check for potential updates - which leads to lost updates if the file update happens within one second of the checkout. bazaar is more thorough when checking for changes - this costs time but is much safer.