From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.comp.version-control.bazaar-ng.general,gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs repository benchmark: bzr and git Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:55:12 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20080318154316.GA6242@mithlond.arda.local> <47DFE4EA.5000600@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1206586531 17864 80.91.229.12 (27 Mar 2008 02:55:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 02:55:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bazaar@lists.canonical.com, tlikonen@iki.fi, lennart.borgman@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Jonathan Lange" Original-X-From: bazaar-bounces@lists.canonical.com Thu Mar 27 03:56:00 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvbg-bazaar-ng@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from chlorine.canonical.com ([91.189.94.204]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JeiHS-0006rj-OP for gcvbg-bazaar-ng@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 03:55:54 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=chlorine.canonical.com) by chlorine.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JeiGq-00027r-IC; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 02:55:16 +0000 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.182]) by chlorine.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JeiGo-00026z-C8 for bazaar@lists.canonical.com; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 02:55:14 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuAEAGKp6kdMCrTo/2dsb2JhbACBWqlm X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,562,1199682000"; d="scan'208";a="16930829" Original-Received: from smtp.pppoe.ca (HELO smtp.teksavvy.com) ([65.39.196.238]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2008 22:55:12 -0400 Original-Received: from pastel.home ([76.10.180.232]) by smtp.teksavvy.com (Internet Mail Server v1.0) with ESMTP id HFE07013; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:55:13 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id A0B237F9E; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:55:12 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Jonathan Lange's message of "Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:32:09 +1100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: bazaar@lists.canonical.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.8 Precedence: list List-Id: bazaar discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bazaar-bounces@lists.canonical.com Errors-To: bazaar-bounces@lists.canonical.com Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.version-control.bazaar-ng.general:39320 gmane.emacs.devel:93608 Archived-At: > I've tried to get a list of things that Bazaar needs to improve from > trawling through this list and bugs on the Bazaar tracker. > So far I have: > * bzr log needs to be much faster for single files[1] and for > subsets of history. > * bzr diff -r needs to take at most a couple of seconds > * bzr st needs to be instantaneous. > * Must be able to get the diff between the current branch and its > parent very quickly. Actually, this last point is the same as the second. As for the remaining three they come in this order: * bzr st needs to be instantaneous. * bzr diff -r needs to take at most a couple of seconds * bzr log needs to be much faster for single files[1] and for subsets of history. The first is very serious since it make vc-bzr unusable. Also it's very easy to fix by providing a new option that prevents outputting the list of pending changes (which is the operation that takes a long time, and we don't need that info anyway). > These are all performance related. I can't recall coming across any > other blockers, but then I haven't been following every email on this > & related threads. Also, given the current performance problems, we haven't tried much more. E.g. I have no idea how easy it will be to keep Bzr-Emacs in sync with Gnus's repository. > [1] Bazaar tends to assume you want to work with the whole tree for > every operation. I think this might be the root cause of a lot of the > disappointment in Bazaar's performance. Actually, as far as I can tell, most of the above problems are unrelated to "single file vs whole tree": it takes about the same time to do it on a single file than on the whole tree. Stefan