Emacs Bazaar repository

[David Kastrup]

James Westby <jw+debian at jameswestby.net> writes:

> On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 14:35 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> writes:
>> 
>> > The biggest reason 'bzr log' is slow is because we spend some time
>> > analyzing the ancestry to give a "pretty" view, while git/hg do not.
>> 
>> git most certainly does.
>
> But it's analysis is different.

How?

> It is doing something that has fewer constraints on the output that
> bzr log.
>
> You still end up with a list of revisions, but the ordering on bzr's
> is more complex to calculate.

Then it should improve its data structures.

>> > Specifically, when you do "bzr log" we traverse the ancestry to figure
>> > out when revisions were merged, etc.
>> 
>> What makes you think git doesn't?
>
> I don't think John articulated his point as he would have liked there.
>
>> > I believe plain "git log" just starts outputting the revisions as it
>> > encounters them, and "hg log" also outputs them as they are stored.
>> 
>> git has a large variety of options for selecting order and subset and
>> relation of what to output to the log.
>
> However it doesn't have one that outputs them in the same order as
> bzr.

The default is topological order.  I don't see anything that bzr would
offer additionally.

> I'm sure that John did not intend to say that git "sucks", and I
> firmly believe that none of us believes that, and certainly no-one
> would argue that it is not faster than bzr.
>
> I think there are still criticisms of the UI, even though it has
> significantly improved recently.

Sigh.  So it is fine if the logs of bzr are really slow because the UI
of git is considered not all too hot.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum