[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.
Yes.
> 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.
OK.
> '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.
Juanma
- Re: Surely 'bzr branch' shouldn't be this slow?, (continued)
- Re: Surely 'bzr branch' shouldn't be this slow?, Yavor Doganov, 2010/01/07
- Re: Surely 'bzr branch' shouldn't be this slow?, Stefan Monnier, 2010/01/07
- Re: Surely 'bzr branch' shouldn't be this slow?, Lennart Borgman, 2010/01/07
- Thrashing [was: Surely 'bzr branch' shouldn't be this slow?], Stephen J. Turnbull, 2010/01/07
- Re: Thrashing [was: Surely 'bzr branch' shouldn't be this slow?], Lennart Borgman, 2010/01/07
- Re: Surely 'bzr update' shouldn't be this slow? [was: branch], Alan Mackenzie, 2010/01/07
- Re: Surely 'bzr update' shouldn't be this slow?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/01/07
- Re: Surely 'bzr update' shouldn't be this slow?, Lennart Borgman, 2010/01/07
- Re: Surely 'bzr update' shouldn't be this slow?, Jan Djärv, 2010/01/07
- Re: Surely 'bzr update' shouldn't be this slow?, Alan Mackenzie, 2010/01/07
- Re: Surely 'bzr update' shouldn't be this slow?,
Juanma Barranquero <=
- Re: Surely 'bzr update' shouldn't be this slow?, Karl Fogel, 2010/01/07
- Re: Surely 'bzr update' shouldn't be this slow?, Glenn Morris, 2010/01/07
- Re: Surely 'bzr update' shouldn't be this slow?, Karl Fogel, 2010/01/07
- Re: Surely 'bzr update' shouldn't be this slow?, Glenn Morris, 2010/01/07
- Re: Surely 'bzr update' shouldn't be this slow?, Eli Zaretskii, 2010/01/08
- Re: Surely 'bzr update' shouldn't be this slow?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/01/07
- Re: Surely 'bzr update' shouldn't be this slow?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2010/01/07
- Re: Surely 'bzr update' shouldn't be this slow?, Stefan Monnier, 2010/01/07
- Re: Surely 'bzr branch' shouldn't be this slow?, Stefan Monnier, 2010/01/06
- Re: Surely 'bzr branch' shouldn't be this slow?, Karl Fogel, 2010/01/07