On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 04:46:47PM -0400, MenTaLguY wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 23:49 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 09:35:55PM -0700, Ted Gould wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 17:05 -0700, MenTaLguY wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 00:21:47 +0100, jiho <
jo.irisson@...400...> wrote:
> > > > > I'm not sure there's really a need to continue counting points right
> > > > > now. It seems bazaar is the clear winner. Is there someone with a
> > > > > strong opinion about that? Who's organising the switch? ;)
> > > >
> > > > Well, first I think we need to do a trial import into bzr to make sure
> > > > that performance is acceptable?
> > >
> > > I don't know what you define there, but I was curious. So I branched
> > > the import (10 minutes) changed the changelog and pushed it into a
> > > private branch (35 minutes). Made another change to the changelog and
> > > pushed it (15 seconds). The whole repository is about 80 MB and my DSL
> > > is 768/128.
> > >
> > > Any other metrics?
> >
> > To give another data point, I branched ted's branch (6m15.4s), modified
> > the Changelog, committed locally (13.1s), registered a new branch that
> > anyone on the Inkscape-Admin team can commit to, and then pushed up the
> > new branch (39m19.8s). A local commit to Changelog took 2.8s, and push
> > took 15.4 sec (these are more representative of day-to-day work). I
> > then proposed to merge into Ted's branch. This is with Comcast
> > cablemodem with similar up/down rates as ted.
> >
> > I also gave it a try on an account on one of the
canonical.com servers.
> > branch: 46s, commit: 4.2s. So network performance seems to be a large
> > driver.
>
> For me, with git, a remote clone took about 5 minutes, pushing to a new
> remote branch in the same remote repository took 4 seconds, pushing to a
> new remote branch in a fresh remote repository took about 6 minutes, the
> local commit took less than a second, and the subsequent push to an
> established remote branch took just over a second.