bzr check

bzr check

[Juanma Barranquero]

Contrarily to some opinions voiced here, I'm quite happy with both the
feature set and the performance of Bazaar (though any improvement will
be welcome, as will bzr+shh).

However, there's one operation that I just cannot do on Windows: "bzr
check" of the repository. At the rate it works, I estimate more than
24 hours to check it. It's that a consequence of the Emacs repository
size, or Bazaar performance on NTFS, or just something in my setup?

    Juanma

Re: bzr check

[Stefan Monnier]

> Contrarily to some opinions voiced here, I'm quite happy with both the
> feature set and the performance of Bazaar (though any improvement will
> be welcome, as will bzr+shh).

> However, there's one operation that I just cannot do on Windows: "bzr
> check" of the repository. At the rate it works, I estimate more than
> 24 hours to check it. It's that a consequence of the Emacs repository
> size, or Bazaar performance on NTFS, or just something in my setup?

I've never used it (in more than a year of use, maybe two), and since
I don't think I'm an oddball user of Bazaar, I wouldn't fault the
developpers if they spent 0 time on speeding up "bzr check".


        Stefan

Re: bzr check

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 16:39, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

> I've never used it (in more than a year of use, maybe two), and since
> I don't think I'm an oddball user of Bazaar, I wouldn't fault the
> developpers if they spent 0 time on speeding up "bzr check".

IMO, bzr check is one of those commands that you don't use most of the
time, but when you do need it, you need it badly. Or are you saying
that checking the consistency of the repository is really never
needed? What do you propose when you suspect a failure, branching
again from upstream?

    Juanma

Re: bzr check

[Stefan Monnier]

>> I've never used it (in more than a year of use, maybe two), and since
>> I don't think I'm an oddball user of Bazaar, I wouldn't fault the
>> developpers if they spent 0 time on speeding up "bzr check".

> IMO, bzr check is one of those commands that you don't use most of the
> time, but when you do need it, you need it badly. Or are you saying
> that checking the consistency of the repository is really never
> needed? What do you propose when you suspect a failure, branching
> again from upstream?

How 'bout branching from the suspicious branch into a fresh new
repository?  It should rebuild the whole thing from scratch and hence
fail if there's some corruption somewhere.


        Stefan

Re: bzr check

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 19:40, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

> How 'bout branching from the suspicious branch into a fresh new
> repository?

It's not a branch I suspect trouble from, it's the shared repository.
Branches are bzr check'ed in a very short time.

> It should rebuild the whole thing from scratch and hence
> fail if there's some corruption somewhere.

Assuming there are several branches in that shared repo, I should
clone them all to be sure of it. Feasible, but an ugly workaround
nonetheless.

bzr check should work, and in a reasonable amount of time (I'm not
asking seconds or even minutes, but tens of hours seems ridiculous).
Other dVCS have consistency checking commands and they usually are
nowhere that slow.

    Juanma