Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla

[John Meinel]

Dustin Sallings wrote:
>
[...]
>     I use perforce at work, and I can say that the speed difference is 
> really worth any perceived inconvenience there.  For me, I've got a vim 
> macro (\o) that will open whatever file I'm working on for edit, and 
> another (\pa) that will open the current file for add.
>
>     I spent a good hour and a half playing with arch trees on a plane 
> trying to make some minor changes.  Commits would take a good five 
> minutes for each change (after about as long for a changes).  It was 
> basically unusable.
>
>     I was working on a branch of a tree with a lot of patches (migrated 
> directly from p4 changesets) and a lot of files using explicit tagging 
> and a greedy revlib if anyone's wondering.

Well, if you can do hard-linked source trees, I've found that my 'tla 
changes' time goes *way* down.

However, I also use arch on windows, where it is even worse. I have at 
times done "tla commit" and then I walk away and go do something else so 
that I'm not just sitting there waiting for it to finish.

I do sort of wish that arch had a "don't diff unless the timestamp has 
been altered". Most OS's respect timestamps. So when you write to a 
file, the timestamp is updated. I may be misunderstanding what arch 
does, it might already have this, and it's just the overhead of stat'ing 
3000 files. (+3000 from the pristine/revlib).

I also know that Tom has proposed some ideas about saying 'tla commit 
--this-directory' so that it doesn't have to look everywhere, and can 
focus on what you've told it.

But his overall plans seemed much more involved, so I'm not sure where 
that is going.

John
=:->

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature