Re: Abolishing ChangeLog files

[Dmitry Gutov]

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,
> > > anyway.
> >
> > 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.