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.
Note that this was with the partial history since the switch to subversion (since that's what I have easily available in git right now); with a full history I would expect the times for remote initial clone or push to be at least a little longer (though not linearly so, since git sends deltas). Anyway, it sounds like git and bzr at least within the same order of magnitude for cloning, so that's cool.
I'm not sure what's up with pushing, though; I find the idea of waiting more than half an hour for a full push to be really appalling, I'm not really keen on waiting 15 seconds for a trivial push to finish either, and I'm kinda used to local commits being more or less instantaneous (what is there to do that takes four seconds?).
I don't see that things are so bad for users accustomed to SVN, though. The one issue I do see being a concern for SVN users is the initial remote push time. With SVN, creating a new remote branch is effectively instantaneous (as it is with git when you're branching within the same repository). HALF AN HOUR is nuts!
Is there a way to have multiple branches in the same repository with bzr, or faster ways to do it when both branches are hosted on the same server?
-mental