From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Official Git mirror? Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:09:03 +0100 Message-ID: <87oc65id40.fsf@wanadoo.es> References: <83fwritmmx.fsf@gnu.org> <87wrkuhrtb.fsf@wanadoo.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1298304603 29946 80.91.229.12 (21 Feb 2011 16:10:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 16:10:03 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 21 17:09:59 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@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 1PrYKi-0002Eq-FY for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:09:56 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36479 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PrYKh-00049j-TT for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:09:55 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=45458 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PrYK8-00048k-3H for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:09:22 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PrYK6-0007B6-4Z for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:09:19 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:47139) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PrYK5-0007An-Ox for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:09:18 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PrYK3-0001ms-OD for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:09:15 +0100 Original-Received: from 103.red-79-150-239.dynamicip.rima-tde.net ([79.150.239.103]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:09:15 +0100 Original-Received: from ofv by 103.red-79-150-239.dynamicip.rima-tde.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:09:15 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 75 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 103.red-79-150-239.dynamicip.rima-tde.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:7jtGMVGY7EVP6xdsX74JdhVkTX8= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 80.91.229.12 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:79284 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > I don't think 11 min are significantly better than 17. Seems like a > good price to pay for being always in sync with the repository. And > this is just the initial checkout, the differences get even smaller > for routine day-to-day operation. > > Yours is just one example, I get almost the same times, and sometimes > slightly faster times for bzr than for git. Here's one example where > I got the same times: > > bzr: > real 0m14.437s > user 0m2.516s > sys 0m0.308s > > git: > real 13m59.655s > user 7m55.702s > sys 0m18.321s The times quoted above seems wrong (0m14s for bzr?) > Btw, what is your bzr version? You could get faster downloads with > the latest versions (2.2+). 2.2.1 >> Please note that git downloads all 51 branches that exists or existed on >> Savannah while bzr gets just `trunk'. > > Most people don't need the other branches, so it's just ballast. I have no issues with your recommendation of using bzr. I'm discussing your assertion about bzr protocol's efficiency compared to git. >> Git keeps the pipe downloading data at full speed all the time, while >> bzr fluctuates a lot, including several long pauses, possibly because >> the server is doing some CPU-intensive work for preparing the data. > > The nosmart+ option prevents the server from wasting CPU cycles when > everything is needed to be downloaded anyway. Then the question is: why is it not enabled by default when bzr clones a branch from scratch? >> Maybe the differences are not big enough to notice by most people that >> update their Emacs mirrors from time to time, but it is not accurate to >> say that bzr's network protocol is no less efficient than git. > > I did testing on several machines, and the average is almost the same, > in terms of elapsed time. On some machines, git is slightly faster, > on others it's the other way around. Bzr is quite CPU- and memory-intensive, to the point of being almost unbearable when cloning a large branch (i.e. Emacs) on a netbook. Maybe the machines that work faster for you are the more powerful ones? > And I doubt that many people care about the trade-off between CPU, > file I/O, and network I/O. The OP was talking about the network > protocol, but I'm quite sure he actually cares about the elapsed time > of the initial download. Agreed. > Bottom line: I'd advise using bzr, because the advantages of using the > same tool as the Emacs developers (same revision IDs etc.) outweigh > the disadvantages of a slightly slower operation, even on GNU/Linux. Agreed too, except for the case where the user is already familiar with git and wants to keep local changes or do experimental hacking. Apart from differences on workflow and performance, whose value may be subjetive, developing with emacs+git is a very pleasant experience thanks to packages like magit.el and others. Bzr still has a long path to walk on terms of Emacs integration.