From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Jonathan Lange" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs Bazaar repository Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:46:11 +1100 Message-ID: References: <87skyvse7k.fsf@xmission.com> <87fxuvl0gi.fsf@offby1.atm01.sea.blarg.net> <87bq5j19ok.fsf@workhorse.earlhome> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1205452011 31053 80.91.229.12 (13 Mar 2008 23:46:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:46:51 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Jason Earl , Martin Pool , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: dhruva Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 14 00:47:19 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 1JZx8g-0005YV-8o for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:47:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JZx85-0003z6-HZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:46:33 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JZx81-0003z0-JK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:46:29 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JZx80-0003yl-4h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:46:29 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JZx7z-0003yi-Uv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:46:27 -0400 Original-Received: from mu-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.134.187]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JZx7z-0001hG-56 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:46:27 -0400 Original-Received: by mu-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id g7so4587356muf.0 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:46:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=4bKYT2SBGhY/keeIDJ9SFadvWXgnCjrW1XwwLwvWZd8=; b=isTLVLMveD5REflQKFBpgl9ItTIUBUBV3AYS4vQOsS4axapCOzG6eTaoqFlJUYLdmVpz3fCle5wAM4jy2hGH7MeFvcrcdy1polmaYfeYNvAu5mH7cNNBc4GsmQkVFttExwkTDCZznDSiTpHaaO6FgBKFlCZ/aapNrlVAJLT+oG0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=xi4CzILFOQEOuCjtKjqjCS8vk2UGAebj1jUh6KomPHvS/uoosXxg3iuqXxm8RSLy+f+JMo3dX20z+M7JsdCDG4eDKyit5DiZOTmpIhKbQ5mTay6HthgmndZkFROPApdsK8tPtzmr5cIp74FPh13wqYPw2P1P2VeSRi/x4HzDoj8= Original-Received: by 10.78.203.15 with SMTP id a15mr27506997hug.57.1205451977390; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:46:17 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.78.149.7 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:46:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline X-Google-Sender-Auth: e468b8188caa89a8 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:92451 Archived-At: On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 7:04 PM, dhruva wrote: > Hi, > I got bzr setup and running on my M$-XP box. I got the bzr repo of > emacs (by downloading the emacs.tar.gz) and updated it to the latest. > I wanted to make sure the recent changesets are pulled in. I typed > "bzr log -l 10". It took ~24 seconds (elapsed time from perfmon) > consistently. Whereas Mercurial (hg log -l 10) on the trunk to 2 > seconds (and the mercurial repo is on a CIFS mounted drive while bzr > repo was on local disk). GIT was fastest though even on a CIFS mounted > system. > I was a bit curious about this so I asked my friendly neighbourhood Bazaar hacker (CCd). He tells me that comparing 'bzr log' to 'hg log' is like comparing apples with ... umm, apple trees. Bazaar's log displays all merges and thus has to do calculations on the whole ancestry graph. Mercurial's log just displays the mainline history. 'bzr log --line' is a better comparison. Unfortunately, 'bzr log --line' is nowhere near as fast as it could be. We did a quick test and saw that 'log --line -l 10' takes about half the time as 'log -l 10' which is still too slow. It's still doing too much work with the whole graph. We whipped up a quick hack and got it doing the same thing in about 0.25 seconds, which is getting close. > IMHO, the performance aspects must be considered seriously. > Definitely. I hate waiting for anything, computers most of all. I'll hassle Martin and try to get this fixed. Alternatively, the Bazaar project welcomes patches with open arms. :) jml