Feedback from evaluation in a corporate environment

[Robert Collins]

On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 16:22 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> 
> developers.  And *they* ask why doesn't bzr use the HTTP range header
> or some such.

.... which, of course, we do. Its just that round trips kill.

>   Just plausible enough to make bzr look bad to anybody
> with less knowledge than I have.  You see?  The cup is half-*empty*!

Yup.

>  > More generally, yes, it's possible to use most tools in a way that
>  > makes them slow, and we have more to do to make the obvious way
> always
>  > the best way.  Read the manual, or ask, or just try it.  It's not
> hard
>  > to use bzr in a way that makes it fast and easy.
> 
> Yeah, I said that too.  But what you perhaps don't know is that
> Richard Stallman finds that unacceptable -- he insists that the Emacs
> maintainers find a way to make *existing Emacs workflows*, or
> something very close to them, fast and easy.

I know other bzr advocates and perhaps some devs are on the emacs list -
are you getting appropriate support in making the existing emacs
workflows work well enough?

> Messrs. Budden and Moszkowicz are somewhat more accomodating, but they
> clearly are not interested in asking their users to read manuals, ask,
> or just try it.  In Uri's case, he *did* try it, and while he was
> polite enough not to dismiss bzr out of hand, he did say that the
> performance he experienced won't cut it.  IMO, *that performance needs
> to be explained* in terms that allow him to be confident that he can
> consistently get the performance he needs as the workflows evolve, not
> just explained away for each example as it comes up.

I think this is a really good and important point.

-Rob
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20100108/fe5e9e72/attachment.pgp