Some unscientific timing results (on the Python source tree)
jelmer at samba.org
Mon Mar 24 13:31:51 GMT 2008
On Mo, 2008-03-24 at 21:32 +0900, David Cournapeau wrote:
> Paul Moore wrote:
> > Good point, I'd forgotten that. But I repeat that I wasn't trying to
> > optimise, rather to "just use" what the people setting up the
> > repositories had suggested I use. (I don't even know if there's a bzr
> > smart server I have the ability - as a user without commit access - to
> > use).
> I understand the nuisance as a user, but I am not sure you can blame bzr
> if nobody set it up for good performances. Maybe bzr server is harder to
> set up than mercurial, at which point it is a bzr problem (I don't say
> it is, I just don't have that experience).
The smart server isn't significantly faster than plain http as far as I
know. Pauls timings match what I have seen on repositories with tens of
thousands of revisions in history. It's a lot better than what it used
to be, but still behind on some other systems.
I believe there is some work going on trying to improve the performance
of "log". Not sure about the revision copying code, but that definitely
could use some work too.
Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at samba.org> - http://samba.org/~jelmer/
Jabber: jelmer at jabber.fsfe.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20080324/ba4edbf1/attachment.pgp
More information about the bazaar