From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Abolishing ChangeLog files Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 23:29:53 +0200 Message-ID: <83li97w6um.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87y5d9p5td.fsf@dex.adm.naquadah.org> <87vc8dtbcb.fsf@lifelogs.com> <871ub1gmdf.fsf@engster.org> <87d2ulovd0.fsf@dex.adm.naquadah.org> <85r4j0h1ww.fsf@member.fsf.org> <85li98h1qx.fsf@member.fsf.org> <87ehf0b3x2.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87obe3gaem.fsf@engster.org> <87ip4bj1ay.fsf_-_@earth.home> <83wqsrwkim.fsf@gnu.org> <87a9pn5tlf.fsf@yandex.ru> <83txnvwhqw.fsf@gnu.org> <5154B063.2050904@yandex.ru> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1364506187 3699 80.91.229.3 (28 Mar 2013 21:29:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 21:29:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 28 22:30:13 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ULKOh-0001cQ-Jl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 22:30:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39055 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ULKOJ-0004Wn-GP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:29:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:51502) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ULKO9-0004O3-LQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:29:38 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ULKO8-00048c-JB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:29:37 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:53330) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ULKO8-00048K-8E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:29:36 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MKE008003JAPT00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 23:29:34 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MKE008P03PAAYA0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 23:29:34 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <5154B063.2050904@yandex.ru> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.166 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:158388 Archived-At: > Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 01:04:35 +0400 > From: Dmitry Gutov > Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > To answer your question, then, yes, 4.5 times faster indeed is "much > more quickly". The difference here is not critical, but nice to have. Get real! This started from the example of someone looking at the log entry; human needs much more than a few hundreds of milliseconds to read it, so a difference of 700 msec (for 5000 revisions!) is entirely irrelevant. Do you really know someone who can read 5000 entries in under one second? > >> In my experience, Bzr is especially slow when showing log for a subtree > >> or a specific file. > > > > I could ask you to show numbers (because I have no such experience), > > but I won't. No one in this thread wants any serious discussion, > > anyway. > > I would send you the numbers if you pointed me at the mingw port of > 'time' you're apparently using. I wrote that program myself. Unix 'time' cannot be ported, because it uses too many Posix APIs. > But here's an example command: > > git log lisp\progmodes\ruby-mode.el | less > > It takes about 300ms on the first run and is instantaneous after that. Not here: $ time git log lisp/progmodes/ruby-mode.el > /dev/null real 0m5.140s user 0m0.015s sys 0m0.000s D:\gnu\bzr\emacs\msys-build>timep bzr log lisp\progmodes\ruby-mode.el > nul real 00h00m04.281s user 00h00m04.078s sys 00h00m00.218s Entirely comparable. And re-running the commands doesn't change the times, so I don't think any caching is involved. > Anyway, the most important speedup I expect to see is the time it takes > to do "git pull" vs "bzr update". I haven't done any real testing there > yet, but the latter command takes entirely too long. Depends on how large is your pull. E.g., the initial "git clone" took me almost 3 hours; bzr did the same in under 50 min. But we have been all through this, time and again. The real numbers don't convince anyone. It's a religious argument since day one.