Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: results of mercurial user survey

[Johan Bolmsjö]

On Friday 28 April 2006 00:03, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 11:28:27AM +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> > Pulling the monotone repo could have been nearly twice as fast, since
> > almost half of the revisions are merges. 'commit before update' is
> > great, but PR wise you are shooting yourselves in the foot IMO.
>
> Well, maybe.  We _should_ be fast enough that it doesn't matter,
> though :-).  (We also could make the initial pull go at line speed
> trivially, if we wanted; just feed the raw data straight out of the db
> and straight into the other side's db.  It's just that we're still
> trying to see how far we can get with "safe" before we give it up.)
>
> Also, data point: in the monotone repo, only ~1/5 of the revisions are
> merges.  (Presumably this varies with a group's habits.)  Getting rid
> of 1/5 of the revisions probably would make things somewhat faster,
> it's true... in monotone's case, it was only a few months ago that we
> _had_ 4/5 as many revisions as we do now.
>
> Using a pull of net.venge.monotone is slightly problematic as a
> benchmark, because the benchmark data set has been growing larger
> almost as fast as we've been optimizing :-).
>
> -- Nathaniel

For what it's worth I've been using monotone with a 200 MB repository (8000+ 
files) and it's definitely not too slow for me. Compared to clearcase it's a 
relief:-)

On the other hand I rarely do a fresh pull on this big repository. But with a 
20-30 MB one I do it once in a while.

monotone is hardly complicated to use? I think it gets better all the time. I 
have some small scripts that checks for updates in the repository compared to 
my workdir and so on...

The SSH complaint is nil in my opinion, just set up a SSH tunnel. Or am I 
missing something?

P.S.
I have a dual core X2. Don't think monotone makes much use of the second core 
though? :-)

/Johan