| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
I have some doubts about the usage of "co --lightweight" instead of the |
| 5 |
plain "co". The only reason I can see is the reduced disk-space needed. |
| 6 |
Because concerning time, the lightweight checkouts take (way) longer... |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Just some bash-time tests done with the portage bzr-repo (lp:portage -- |
| 9 |
6470 revisions). I used bzr-1.12: |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
method fetch export |
| 12 |
====== ===== ====== |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
branch: ~47s / ~2s |
| 15 |
stacked branch: ~68s / ~49s |
| 16 |
checkout: ~46s / ~2s |
| 17 |
lightweight co: ~50s / ~51s |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
As one can easily see: While the fetch time for co and lw-co are more or |
| 20 |
less equal, the export time is not. As one can say, that each package is |
| 21 |
at least exported as often as updated (if not more often), this makes |
| 22 |
the lw co operation more or less a no-no. (Waiting one minute to get a |
| 23 |
snapshot of a medium-sized project? ... ehm - NO) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
But for completeness: size with co: 24MB - with lw-co: 3,1MB |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
So I'd vote for switching back to using normal checkouts (or branches - |
| 28 |
they don't really differ in bzr for that matter). |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Regards, |
| 31 |
Necoro |
| 32 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 33 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 34 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkm3CeIACgkQ4UOg/zhYFuAmmQCeL/BqnCClR5CBapvAvO3Og0Tu |
| 37 |
MBEAoINCwaNfnAYkFyxmaB2kR5BeHMsj |
| 38 |
=37WD |
| 39 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives