Comment 13 for bug 116094
Revision history for this message
| Robert Collins (lifeless) wrote Re: [Bug 116094] Re: local clone without shared repository is too slow | #13 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
1b1ed1a
(Get the code!)
On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 04:42 +0000, Ian Clatworthy wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
>
> > The question is 'is 20 minutes appropriate for cloning all the history
> > of a project the size of OOo' ? And I think it is.
>
> "time cp -a OOo-trunk OOo-fix" takes 1m24secs and that's starting from a
> cold cache.
>
> 90 seconds is a longer break in concentration than most developers will
> accept to start a feature branch. Even so, they can grab a cup of coffee
> while it's happening (multiple times per day). 20 minutes for "bzr
> branch" is *completely* unacceptable IMO. (They only stop for lunch once
> a day.)
>
> I don't have recent figures but I believe git and hg are both in the
> ballpark for cp -a (or better). We cannot be 10-20X slower and expect
> users not to complain.
If users want to copy without validation, I think they should copy. cp
-a is effectively ideal for this - why should we reimplement it!
The *primary* fix for this is 'do not copy history to make new
branches', and making that more accessible is very important: but its
still *not this bug*.
-Rob