From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.comp.version-control.bazaar-ng.general Subject: Re: Emacs repository benchmark: bzr and git Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:51:06 +0100 Message-ID: <47DFE4EA.5000600@gmail.com> References: <20080318154316.GA6242@mithlond.arda.local> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1205855502 12224 80.91.229.12 (18 Mar 2008 15:51:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:51:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bazaar@lists.canonical.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Teemu Likonen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 18 16:52:11 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 1Jbe6e-00088x-Nr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:52:05 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jbe64-0002Kv-QW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:51:28 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jbe60-0002Ko-Kh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:51:24 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jbe5w-0002KC-6J for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:51:23 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jbe5w-0002K9-0Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:51:20 -0400 Original-Received: from ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.212]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Jbe5v-00088c-P4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:51:19 -0400 Original-Received: from c83-254-148-228.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.148.228]:59549 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1Jbe5r-00028F-3X; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:51:17 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 In-Reply-To: <20080318154316.GA6242@mithlond.arda.local> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080318-0, 2008-03-18), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Originating-IP: 83.254.148.228 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1Jbe5r-00028F-3X. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net 1Jbe5r-00028F-3X d863c1f7cafbd5b7bcf3c4d1f1de90ce X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6? (barebone, rare!) 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:92892 gmane.comp.version-control.bazaar-ng.general:38919 Archived-At: Teemu Likonen wrote: > I did some benchmarking in git and bzr repositories of Emacs. Some > numbers: 89711 revisions (by "git log --pretty=oneline | wc -l"), 2825 > files. Both repositories seem to have just linear history converted from > CVS repo. Both have the same head revision which is > 481c2a1e31f32c8aa0fb6d504575b75a18537788 (git) and > revid:cvs-1:tsdh-20080318180244-lxbzttdnh6ecqbka (bzr). > > Repositories/branches are pulled from here: > git: git://git.sv.gnu.org/emacs.git > bzr: http://bzr.notengoamigos.org/emacs/trunk/ > > My system is AMD Sempron 3000+ with 2 GB memory and it's running Debian > GNU/Linux 4.0. I'm using the latest development versions of both git > (1.5.5.rc0.6.gdeda) and bzr (1.4dev). I just measured with 'time' > command how long it takes to run certain commands. > > > > Viewing history > --------------- > > > The complete history: > > $ time git log >/dev/null > real 0m5.741s > > $ time bzr log >/dev/null > real 3m15.708s I no nothing about this, but it looks like the bzr developers thinks that bzr is as fast as git: http://bazaar-vcs.org/Benchmarks It looks like something is wrong, I have absolutely no idea what. Was someone here in contact with the bzr developers?