From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Testing the new VC code Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 07:44:58 +0100 Message-ID: <877fyj4w45.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <20141123215659.2CA0C382F79@snark.thyrsus.com> <874mtp58a9.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <20141124083310.GA29913@thyrsus.com> <87zjbh3r98.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <20141124094929.GA32148@thyrsus.com> <87k32k51ka.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <20141124104616.GA1744@thyrsus.com> <87fvd8steg.fsf@gmx.de> <20141124130355.GA5432@thyrsus.com> <87bnnwqtfi.fsf@gmx.de> <20141125025054.GA20793@thyrsus.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1416918344 15230 80.91.229.3 (25 Nov 2014 12:25:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 12:25:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Michael Albinus , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Eric S. Raymond" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 25 13:25:37 2014 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 1XtFBZ-0006y0-7m for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 13:25:37 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56735 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XtFBY-0006Bm-LZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 07:25:36 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52009) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XtFBT-0006Aw-Az for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 07:25:32 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XtFBM-0001qE-9N for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 07:25:31 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:53259) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XtFBM-0001q4-6D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 07:25:24 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60429 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XtFBK-0001t0-6M; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 07:25:23 -0500 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4E405DF641; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 07:44:58 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20141125025054.GA20793@thyrsus.com> (Eric S. Raymond's message of "Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:50:54 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:178233 Archived-At: "Eric S. Raymond" writes: > In any case, none of the differences seem worth getting excited about. > I'll keep an eye on CVS latency, but I won't reintroduce complexity > against it unless we get complaints from real users. With response > times of a quarter second I think that is unlikely - it's not that far > above the minimum ergonomic threshold of 0.17sec below which humans > simply cannot notice latency at all. > > (A spinal reflex arc is about 0.10 seconds. Human nerve conduction > velocity - the "speed of thought" - is not actually very high.) I don't think that the numbers you throw in here carry a lot of meaning. As a musician, I certainly have to be able to produce and recognize runs with individual notes shorter than 0.17 seconds. The speed typing record is at 216 words per minute. That's words, not letters. So whether or not those kinds of delay turn out relevant in practice very much depends on which tasks with what kind of interactivity they appear in. Blanket musings about some "speed of thought" are meaningless. -- David Kastrup