[darcs-users] [Haskell-cafe] Re: poll: how can we help you contribute to darcs?

[Alberto Bertogli]

On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 01:26:35AM -0400, Max Battcher wrote:
> Alberto Bertogli wrote:
>> While tracking a darcsweb issue that was posted to the darcs-users list
>> (and it seems to be a darcs bug), I noticed that getting a diff for a
>> given patch felt slow.
>>
>> So when I saw your mail, I decided to make a quick comparison on the
>> time it took to get a diff (in each SCM native format, so nobody had to
>> play any conversion tricks.)
>>
>> A cache-hot 'darcs changes -v --match "hash \
>> 	20080806124109-2067a-217fcccd6ce7becfb9a07f10e6c4a29cb00805f5.gz"'
>> on a freshly-cloned darcs' repository takes 0.162s with and without
>> colors.
>>
>> A cache-hot 'git show 0ce3a7e5bd305e96c924fab1e3126480c665f017' on the
>> linux kernel repository takes 0.012s with nice coloring, 0.010s without.
>
> This is interesting.  For my curiosity, Alberto, would you mind throwing  
> in your comparison for:
>
> darcs annotate --match "hash \
> 20080806124109-2067a-217fcccd6ce7becfb9a07f10e6c4a29cb00805f5.gz"

Sure!


> I tend to prefer annotate to look at a particular patch diff rather than  
> changes and it appears that annotate is indeed more optimized than  
> changes in this case.  On a random patch I see that ``darcs annotate``  
> has time:

There's not much difference in the output, but a huge one in
performance: it takes 0.006s!


For the "big" commit I just sent in the other email
(20080123013642-20bb4-23996deb7f6aa8dbbc300ac82e66568f4648071d.gz),
using annotate takes 0.040s. Git takes for a similar patch 0.017s.


Thanks,

		Alberto