On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 08:56:59PM -0400, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 12:56 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
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.
Just to make sure we're comparing apples to apples, would you mind also repeating the procedure with bzr, so we can rule out differences in network performance?
I get 5 minutes for branch, 17 minutes for remote push to a new branch, 4 seconds for commit, and 10 seconds for a push to an existing remote branch.
So it sounds like except for the remote push, the numbers you're seeing for bzr are roughly within range of what you're seeing with git?
The 17 minutes is a bit more livable, but I do wonder -- shouldn't there be some way to have bzr branches hosted in the same location share revision data, so you don't need to copy so much around?
Yeah, see Martin Pool's response to my enquiry about this. It seems that while launchpad makes it very simple & convenient to make branches, the implementation currently deployed is not set up for shared storage. Sounds like if cloning performance is a killer issue for us we could self-host (in which case we lose the launchpad integration benefits), until launchpad gains this ability.
Bryce