On Friday 28 April 2006 00:03, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 11:28:27AM +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: > > Pulling the monotone repo could have been nearly twice as fast, since > > almost half of the revisions are merges. 'commit before update' is > > great, but PR wise you are shooting yourselves in the foot IMO. > > Well, maybe. We _should_ be fast enough that it doesn't matter, > though :-). (We also could make the initial pull go at line speed > trivially, if we wanted; just feed the raw data straight out of the db > and straight into the other side's db. It's just that we're still > trying to see how far we can get with "safe" before we give it up.) > > Also, data point: in the monotone repo, only ~1/5 of the revisions are > merges. (Presumably this varies with a group's habits.) Getting rid > of 1/5 of the revisions probably would make things somewhat faster, > it's true... in monotone's case, it was only a few months ago that we > _had_ 4/5 as many revisions as we do now. > > Using a pull of net.venge.monotone is slightly problematic as a > benchmark, because the benchmark data set has been growing larger > almost as fast as we've been optimizing :-). > > -- Nathaniel
For what it's worth I've been using monotone with a 200 MB repository (8000+ files) and it's definitely not too slow for me. Compared to clearcase it's a relief:-) On the other hand I rarely do a fresh pull on this big repository. But with a 20-30 MB one I do it once in a while. monotone is hardly complicated to use? I think it gets better all the time. I have some small scripts that checks for updates in the repository compared to my workdir and so on... The SSH complaint is nil in my opinion, just set up a SSH tunnel. Or am I missing something? P.S. I have a dual core X2. Don't think monotone makes much use of the second core though? :-) /Johan _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
