Re: bzr vs. git repository

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2011 10:54:45 +0100 (CET)
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Werner LEMBERG <wl@gnu.org>
> 
> 
> >> As you can see, bzr still needs about three times more bandwidth in
> >> both receiving and sending...
> > 
> > I don't think this will convince anyone to switch, but frankly, I no
> > longer understand what is all that fuss with git's speed.
> 
> I don't want to convince anyone, I just report the issue.  You are
> overreacting.

It's hard to overreact, with all the git propaganda that goes on
here.  For a project that decided long ago to use bzr, this borders on
being inappropriate.  Posting this on the Bazaar mailing list would be
TRT, IMO.  It's always a Good Thing to get the developers think about
getting their software more efficient.  But posting this here can
never make bzr hog less of the bandwidth, so I don't see why would you
do this except to tease.

More to the point: You've analyzed the net traffic, but not the other
aspects of performance, like file I/O, CPU load, memory consumption,
etc.  At least in principle, there are trade-offs between all of
these.  And depending on the particular system configuration of the
end users, the ones that matter could be other than the net traffic.

In my testing, the differences in the net traffic are not noticeable
in the end result.  And the end result is what really matters for
users (as long as speed and efficiency in general is what we are
talking about).