Tim X <t...@nospam.dev.null> writes:Okay, let's repeat the experiment on a controlled environment.
>> Maybe the differences are not big enough to notice by most people that
>> update their Emacs mirrors from time to time, but it is not accurate to
>> say that bzr's network protocol is no less efficient than git.
> Such comparisons are meaingless. There are two many variables not
LAN 100 Mb/s, idle.
A quad-core 2.4GHz Q6600 machine with 8 GB RAM, Kubuntu 10.10 64 bits (let's
A single-core single-thread Pentium M 2.0GHz with 2 GB RAM, Kubuntu
git version 1.7.1
real / user / sys
On all cases the operation seems CPU-bound on the *client*. Git shows a
It seems that "nosmart" is used for compensating for servers with busy
> However, what really matters is the updates rather than a fresh fullWe are discussing protocol efficiency. It is reasonable to expect that
> branching/cloning as you only do the long initial copy once.
any shortcoming on the cloning process will show in the update
operation. Moreover, on the timings I used an special case for bzr
(nosmart) that may tilt the results to its favor if we extrapolate the
results to update operations.
My experience updating emacs bzr from Launchpad (with the smart
> Personally, I prefer git, but use bzr just as much as a number ofI guess that your anecdotal experience is as good as mine.
> projects I work on use bzr. I've found the initial checkouts to be
> fairly close and later updates to also be about the same.
> The real point to note, as mentioned by Eli, is that the git repositoriesThat's a different issue. No discussion about that.
> are frequently hours behind bzr.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.