[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Abolishing ChangeLog files

From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: Re: Abolishing ChangeLog files
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 02:42:51 +0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4

On 29.03.2013 1:29, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 01:04:35 +0400
From: Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden>
Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden

To answer your question, then, yes, 4.5 times faster indeed is "much
more quickly". The difference here is not critical, but nice to have.

Get real!  This started from the example of someone looking at the log
entry; human needs much more than a few hundreds of milliseconds to
read it, so a difference of 700 msec (for 5000 revisions!) is entirely
irrelevant.  Do you really know someone who can read 5000 entries in
under one second?

Why are you arguing with "nice to have"? I gave you a more significant example below.

In my experience, Bzr is especially slow when showing log for a subtree
or a specific file.

I could ask you to show numbers (because I have no such experience),
but I won't.  No one in this thread wants any serious discussion,

I would send you the numbers if you pointed me at the mingw port of
'time' you're apparently using.

I wrote that program myself.  Unix 'time' cannot be ported, because it
uses too many Posix APIs.

Since you don't seem inclined to distribute it, you won't get exact numbers from me.

But here's an example command:

    git log lisp\progmodes\ruby-mode.el | less

It takes about 300ms on the first run and is instantaneous after that.

Not here:

   $ time git log lisp/progmodes/ruby-mode.el > /dev/null

   real    0m5.140s
   user    0m0.015s
   sys     0m0.000s

   D:\gnu\bzr\emacs\msys-build>timep bzr log lisp\progmodes\ruby-mode.el > nul

   real    00h00m04.281s
   user    00h00m04.078s
   sys     00h00m00.218s

Entirely comparable.  And re-running the commands doesn't change the
times, so I don't think any caching is involved.

That's a weak reply.

Since I get much better numbers with Git, it just means that you need to install a newer version, do 'git gc', or whatever. On the other hand, you get the same numbers with Bazaar, which confirms that Bazaar can't do better.

For the record:

C:\Users\gutov\vc\emacs-git>git --version
git version 1.8.0.msysgit.0

Anyway, the most important speedup I expect to see is the time it takes
to do "git pull" vs "bzr update". I haven't done any real testing there
yet, but the latter command takes entirely too long.

Depends on how large is your pull.  E.g., the initial "git clone" took
me almost 3 hours; bzr did the same in under 50 min.

I mean that whenever I need to do a commit in the Emacs repository, 'bzr update' takes at least 30 seconds or so, even when the difference between the local and remote heads is a couple of commits.

I don't see this kind of problem with Git, but maybe I just haven't tried it with a repository hosted on the same server as Bazaar one.

reply via email to

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