From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.comp.version-control.bazaar-ng.general Subject: Re: Emacs Bazaar repository Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:59:15 +0100 Message-ID: <857ig54dak.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <87skyvse7k.fsf@xmission.com> <86ejae96t4.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <47DA3601.3040507@arbash-meinel.com> <85d4px4edd.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <1205502278.6161.398.camel@flash> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1205503177 9303 80.91.229.12 (14 Mar 2008 13:59:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:59:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bazaar@lists.canonical.com, John Arbash Meinel , Matthieu Moy , schwab@suse.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii To: James Westby Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 14 15:00:05 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 1JaAS3-0002IC-UK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:00:04 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JaARU-00027s-Px for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:59:28 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JaARQ-00027n-7P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:59:24 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JaARP-00027U-74 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:59:23 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JaARP-00027R-1B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:59:23 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-16.arcor-online.net ([151.189.21.56]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JaARL-0005en-AF; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:59:19 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-14-z2.arcor-online.net (mail-in-14-z2.arcor-online.net [151.189.8.31]) by mail-in-16.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 493441F70C1; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:59:17 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from mail-in-11.arcor-online.net (mail-in-11.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.51]) by mail-in-14-z2.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FE64100C0; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:59:17 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from lola.goethe.zz (dslb-084-061-012-006.pools.arcor-ip.net [84.61.12.6]) by mail-in-11.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E347C24924B; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:59:13 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id B1C841C4F906; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:59:15 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <1205502278.6161.398.camel@flash> (James Westby's message of "Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:44:38 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92.1/6229/Fri Mar 14 14:18:43 2008 on mail-in-11.arcor-online.net X-Virus-Status: Clean X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.4-2.6 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:92551 gmane.comp.version-control.bazaar-ng.general:38571 Archived-At: James Westby writes: > On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 14:35 +0100, David Kastrup wrote: >> John Arbash Meinel writes: >> >> > The biggest reason 'bzr log' is slow is because we spend some time >> > analyzing the ancestry to give a "pretty" view, while git/hg do not. >> >> git most certainly does. > > But it's analysis is different. How? > It is doing something that has fewer constraints on the output that > bzr log. > > You still end up with a list of revisions, but the ordering on bzr's > is more complex to calculate. Then it should improve its data structures. >> > Specifically, when you do "bzr log" we traverse the ancestry to figure >> > out when revisions were merged, etc. >> >> What makes you think git doesn't? > > I don't think John articulated his point as he would have liked there. > >> > I believe plain "git log" just starts outputting the revisions as it >> > encounters them, and "hg log" also outputs them as they are stored. >> >> git has a large variety of options for selecting order and subset and >> relation of what to output to the log. > > However it doesn't have one that outputs them in the same order as > bzr. The default is topological order. I don't see anything that bzr would offer additionally. > I'm sure that John did not intend to say that git "sucks", and I > firmly believe that none of us believes that, and certainly no-one > would argue that it is not faster than bzr. > > I think there are still criticisms of the UI, even though it has > significantly improved recently. Sigh. So it is fine if the logs of bzr are really slow because the UI of git is considered not all too hot. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum