On 15 March 2011 08:59, Michael Hope <michael.h...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Richard Sandiford > <richard.sandif...@linaro.org> wrote: >>> Short story is that we have a better tool than svn, so feature >>> branches may make some use cases overall easier and more transparent. >> >> Well, as you say, the size of GCC and its history is pushing the limits >> of bzr a bit. For bug-fixing and committing, I actually find quilt+svn >> to be a fair bit more productive than bzr, and that's even with Andrew >> doing the heavy work on merging. > > I did some quick benchmarks. No comment either way: > bzr pull - took 4:06 to pull down and merge a few changes > bzr branch 4.5 lp-foo - took 4:35 > bzr commit - took 3:08 for a one line change > bzr send (puts the delta in a mail message) - took 10:20 > bzr merge - took 3:08 for the one-line change into trunk
For big trees, I would really recommend you try out 'bzr-colo', which makes it easier to reuse the same working tree across multiple branches. 'bzr colo-branch lp-foo' should be pretty fast, and won't need to create a whole new tree. merge etc may be faster too. http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/plugins/en/colo-plugin.html -- Martin _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
