From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LhCaw-0005za-Hu for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:46:50 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D3628E02BD; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:46:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from host171.http-media.de (213-239-241-171.clients.your-server.de [213.239.241.171]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D8DCE02BD for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:46:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host171.http-media.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6576513EC095 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:46:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.230] (f053229206.adsl.alicedsl.de [78.53.229.206]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by host171.http-media.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59BAA13EC08F for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:46:32 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <49B709E2.5090106@necoro.eu> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:46:26 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?UmVuw6kgJ05lY29ybycgTmV1bWFubg==?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] bzr.eclass: The next level (this time with patch) References: <20090306085454.52f4263b@terra.solaris> In-Reply-To: <20090306085454.52f4263b@terra.solaris> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at host171.sitepush.net X-Archives-Salt: fd491f6a-643d-4653-aa33-940479d60982 X-Archives-Hash: a7f1a9a371c56f72301ac92143fa7a13 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I have some doubts about the usage of "co --lightweight" instead of the plain "co". The only reason I can see is the reduced disk-space needed. Because concerning time, the lightweight checkouts take (way) longer... Just some bash-time tests done with the portage bzr-repo (lp:portage -- 6470 revisions). I used bzr-1.12: method fetch export ====== ===== ====== branch: ~47s / ~2s stacked branch: ~68s / ~49s checkout: ~46s / ~2s lightweight co: ~50s / ~51s As one can easily see: While the fetch time for co and lw-co are more or less equal, the export time is not. As one can say, that each package is at least exported as often as updated (if not more often), this makes the lw co operation more or less a no-no. (Waiting one minute to get a snapshot of a medium-sized project? ... ehm - NO) But for completeness: size with co: 24MB - with lw-co: 3,1MB So I'd vote for switching back to using normal checkouts (or branches - they don't really differ in bzr for that matter). Regards, Necoro -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkm3CeIACgkQ4UOg/zhYFuAmmQCeL/BqnCClR5CBapvAvO3Og0Tu MBEAoINCwaNfnAYkFyxmaB2kR5BeHMsj =37WD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----