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: bzr vs. git repository Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2011 11:52:17 +0200 Message-ID: <83zkrlosry.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20110101.092838.211465745.wl@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1293875433 18120 80.91.229.12 (1 Jan 2011 09:50:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 09:50:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Werner LEMBERG Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 01 10:50:26 2011 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 1PYy6S-00047p-65 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 10:50:24 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53003 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PYy6R-0007BP-NU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 04:50:23 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=58494 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PYy6G-0007B6-B6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 04:50:17 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PYy6F-00073f-BH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 04:50:12 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il ([80.179.55.169]:58220) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PYy6F-00073O-2u; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 04:50:11 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LEC006008JGJ700@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 11:50:09 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.124.219.104]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LEC006OM8NJ31B0@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 11:50:09 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <20110101.092838.211465745.wl@gnu.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) 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:134098 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2011 09:28:38 +0100 (CET) > From: Werner LEMBERG > > As you can see, bzr still needs about three times more bandwidth in > both receiving and sending... So what? In my testing, both on GNU/Linux and on MS-Windows, update/pull times are very similar (with bzr slightly _faster_ on GNU/Linux). That includes the initial "bzr branch" vs "git clone" (10 min for bzr vs 15 for git). Other common operations are mostly comparable as well. (A great surprise was "annotate", which, for xdisp.c, took 1 minute with bzr, but a whopping 4.5 minutes with git. But I see that as a curiosity.) 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. Coupled with the fact that the git repository seems to be updated only once in a while, I see no good reasons to use git at all, at least not for reasons of speed.