From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Bzr switch Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:41:43 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87hby0rgs1.fsf@canonical.com> <87ws6wnlza.fsf@canonical.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1246232527 8041 80.91.229.12 (28 Jun 2009 23:42:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:42:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Andreas Schwab , Jason Earl , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Karl Fogel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 29 01:41:59 2009 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 1ML40U-00057y-Mm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:41:59 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59762 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ML40U-00076t-5s for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:41:58 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1ML40O-00074b-Gk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:41:52 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1ML40J-0006zf-VY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:41:52 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36938 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ML40J-0006zJ-P8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:41:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:63764) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1ML40J-0000l0-Dh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:41:47 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp-01.vtx.ch ([212.147.0.84]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1ML40I-0000bD-HO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:41:46 -0400 Original-Received: from alfajor.home (dyn.144-85-222-231.dsl.vtx.ch [144.85.222.231]) by smtp-01.vtx.ch (VTX Services SA) with ESMTP id 004B428085; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:41:43 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: by alfajor.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 9C4866433A; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:41:43 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <87ws6wnlza.fsf@canonical.com> (Karl Fogel's message of "Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:26:33 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.94 (gnu/linux) X-Detected-Operating-System: by mx20.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:111797 Archived-At: >> Actually, I don't have a preference for that format. If I had >> a preference it'd be for the 1.9 format. > I strongly recommend the new format. It is faster and smaller, in ways > that will make a difference for a large, deep-history project like Emacs. > In particular, 'log -v' times are faster, though I wish they were faster > still. I don't care much about such incremental improvements. Factors of 2 are nice but don't change my point of view: having to manually install Bzr just to access Emacs's repository is a bad idea. Especially given that the format can be changed in the future, so there's no reason to hurry up adoption of the new format. > Yes. Again, I'd like to just give Bazaar 1.16.1 a couple of weeks more > testing -- I don't want to ask the Savannah admins to upgrade only to > have to ask them to do it again shortly afterwards. I'm keeping an eye In the Bzr world, there's always something new coming up providing this and that performance improvement. So there's no point waiting for the next one, cause when the time is passed, you'll end up wanting to wait for the next next one, etc... ad nauseam. > No objection to starting testing earlier, of course! Just in terms of > my own schedule, and a desire to avoid doing work twice, I'm planning to > wait a couple of weeks before making any noises at Savannah. If anyone > wants to take this and run with it sooner, though, I'm all in favor. I'd much rather work on getting the 1.9 format working on Savannah right now, so we can switch to Bzr ASAP. Of course, Jason tells me that the conversion is currently broken for non-bleeding-edge formats, so maybe the 1.9 format is not really an option. Stefan