[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Surely 'bzr update' shouldn't be this slow?

From: Juanma Barranquero
Subject: Re: Surely 'bzr update' shouldn't be this slow?
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:00:35 +0100

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 15:52, Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> wrote:

> Hopefully it was an exceptional case, but I'd not changed my .../trunk at
> all since downloading it, so anything exceptional was at the savannah
> end.


> I'm about to fix a bug which will involve ~100 bytes change to a C file
> and ~200 bytes log message and ChangeLog addition.  How much will the bzr
> commit operation transfer?  Hopefully, several kilobytes, no more.

src/ChangeLog is already ~734 KiB.

> Yes, bzr is too slow for me.  My first checkout took, perhaps, an hour
> and a half, but I can cope with that.


> 'bzr branch' (to a random place)
> took 40 minutes.

Slow, but it's not a common operation (branching and not using a
shared repo, I mean).

> 'bzr update' took 23 minutes, and this is the killer, the operation which
> will make Emacs development such a frustrating, miserable experience; on
> CVS, it would have been faster on my 33MHz 486 with 33kbaud modem.

I just did "bzr up" and it took < 9s. You are generalizing from what
is already been described as an exceptional situation.

> Their basic assumptions don't match the Emacs project, for whatever
> reason.

Their basic assumption, which seems quite reasonable, is that people
will use the smart server, not sftp, for such a big project.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]