Re: git and bzr
- From
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
- Date
- Nov 28, 2006, 18:43 UTC
- Message-ID
- <200611281943.40354.jnareb@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <456C809C.3050503@utoronto.ca>
Dnia wtorek 28. listopada 2006 19:31, Aaron Bentley napisał:
Show 27 quoted lines
> Jakub Narebski wrote: >>>I notice that blame has an option to limit the annotation to recent >>>history. I can only assume that is for performance reasons. bzr >>>annotate doesn't need a feature like that, because annotations are >>>explicit in bzr's storage format. >> >> But you don't have content movement tracking. >> >>> I expect that even if we were to >>>extend annotate to track content across files, it would still be so fast >>>that we wouldn't need it. >> >> >> I think not. > > There's no question that determining content movement could involve > opening a lot of revisions, but you wouldn't need to examine: > > 1. revisions that didn't alter any lines being examined > 2. revisions that altered only the file in question > 3. revisions with multiple parents, because any lines attributed to that > merge will be the outcome of conflict resolution. (Other lines will be > attributed to one of the parents) > > I'll admit though, that when I was thinking of this, I was thinking of > annotation-based merging, a scenario in which the number of lines being > examined is typically extremely low.
Well, I gues that with "annotate friendly" (weave or knit) storage annotate/blame would be faster. But fast annotate was not one of the design goals of git.
How fast is "bzr annotate"?
-- Jakub Narebski