From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_Dj=E4rv?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Locks on the Bzr repository Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 15:02:53 +0200 Message-ID: <4C6FCE7D.7020805@swipnet.se> References: <4C6D56DB.7040703@swipnet.se> <4C6D8EC5.7040901@swipnet.se> <4C6E1F0A.7070506@swipnet.se> <837hjlr78p.fsf@gnu.org> <87zkwhtws5.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83tymppj62.fsf@gnu.org> <871v9t8klf.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83lj81pazq.fsf@gnu.org> <4C6F9009.3030105@swipnet.se> <19567.40614.937000.714861@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <4C6FAC79.1070406@swipnet.se> <19567.52186.156000.312231@gargle.gargle.HOWL> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1282395792 13975 80.91.229.12 (21 Aug 2010 13:03:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:03:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Uday S Reddy Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Aug 21 15:03:11 2010 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Omnj0-0006XI-KX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 15:03:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:32913 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Omniy-0001yh-Sr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 09:03:04 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=57343 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Omnis-0001wp-Hc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 09:02:59 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Omnir-00075T-Bb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 09:02:58 -0400 Original-Received: from smtprelay-h32.telenor.se ([213.150.131.5]:48727) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Omnir-000758-2E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 09:02:57 -0400 Original-Received: from ipb4.telenor.se (ipb4.telenor.se [195.54.127.167]) by smtprelay-h32.telenor.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20295E8C4E for ; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 15:02:54 +0200 (CEST) X-SENDER-IP: [85.225.45.35] X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqczAKlrb0xV4S0jPGdsb2JhbACHaphXDAEBAQE1LbdshTcElDs X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,245,1280700000"; d="scan'208";a="1662655651" Original-Received: from c-232de155.25-1-64736c10.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se (HELO coolsville.localdomain) ([85.225.45.35]) by ipb4.telenor.se with ESMTP; 21 Aug 2010 15:02:54 +0200 Original-Received: from [172.20.199.13] (zeplin [172.20.199.13]) by coolsville.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2A6157FA05A; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 15:02:54 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; sv-SE; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 In-Reply-To: <19567.52186.156000.312231@gargle.gargle.HOWL> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. 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:128960 Archived-At: Uday S Reddy skrev 2010-08-21 14.51: > Jan Dj=E4rv writes: > >>> You are arguing both ways, it seems to me. >> >> I'm arguing that push doesn't buy you anything w.r.t. to speed when se= nding >> changes to Savannah. If by both ways you mean "push is slow" and "com= mit is >> slow" you are correct. We can just say "bzr is slow" and be done with= it. > > If you use unbound branches, push is slow but commit is not slow. Duh. I'm only talking about when stuff goes to Savannah. I know committ= ing=20 locally is much faster, I do it all the time. > Separating push from commit helps you in that, you can do push less > often. No it don't. When a bug fix is done, or a feature is done, I want it to = go to=20 Savannah. Push doesn't help here, when it is time, it is time. > By arguing "both ways", I mean that you want to argue that bound > branches are better. You are putting words in my mouth. I only said for the same amount of da= ta to=20 be sent upstream, push and commit is equally slow. Jan D.