| === ronny is now known as Guest28036 | |
| === jelmer_ is now known as Guest29580 | |
| === ronny is now known as Guest27644 | |
| [03:02] <LaserJock> are there any tricks to getting pulls going any faster? | |
| [03:04] <LaserJock> I'm guessing not, but it just seems like it's awfully slow compared to other VCSs and I wonder if there are any tricks to it | |
| [03:05] <dobey> LaserJock: what version? | |
| [03:05] <LaserJock> especially when there's no new revisions it seems to take a long time considering | |
| [03:05] <LaserJock> I've got 1.6.1 (intrepid default) | |
| [03:05] <dobey> ah | |
| [03:06] <LaserJock> but for instance I timed a multi-pull in a repo with 5 branches and it took over 1 minute | |
| [03:06] <LaserJock> and there were no new revisions so it should have just been checking to see | |
| [03:06] <dobey> 1.9 was just released. i think it's a bit faster than 1.6. performance is one think people are working on | |
| [03:06] <dobey> s/think/thing/ | |
| [03:07] <dobey> not me though. i'm just a user for the most part | |
| [03:09] <LaserJock> I was wondering if it was maybe a bzr-svn thing as most of my branches are from svn repos, but it seems like the native bzr ones are "slow" too | |
| [03:13] <AfC> I never quite got it straight what the conclusion was on the list... | |
| [03:13] <dobey> not sure | |
| [03:14] <AfC> is format=1.9 backwards compatible, or did it introduce rich-root (thereby putting a floor on | |
| [03:14] <AfC> backwards compatibility, of something 1.9 (or $whatever)? | |
| [03:16] <dobey> i'm not sure | |
| [03:18] <AfC> [recognizing that bzr 1.9 client, bzr 1.9 server, and format=1.9 promises some fairly juicy improvements, it seems worth trying for, but in a public project I'm not sure if I'm going to screw people over, so it seemed prudent to ask] | |
| [03:30] <lifeless> AfC: there is 1.9 and 1.9-rich-root | |
| [03:34] <AfC> lifeless: ah | |
| [03:34] <AfC> So we haven't culled rich-root yet. Ok. | |
| [03:35] <AfC> Can a ~1.6 client read a 1.9 branch and downgrade? | |
| [03:35] <AfC> (format=1.9 branch, that is; I know a bzr version 1.9 server will work) | |
| [03:53] <LarstiQ> lifeless: on the off hand it's a simple answer, what is keeping rich-root from becoming default? | |
| [04:45] <Peng_> AfC: 1.9 repos are only compatible with 1.9. | |
| [04:46] <Peng_> AfC: I mean, you can certainly downgrade them to pack-0.92 or knit or whatever, but you'd need to do it with 1.9 or newer. | |
| [04:47] <Peng_> (Well, 1.9rc1 I guess) | |
| [05:17] <stampp-> Howdy folks | |
| [08:30] <codeRat> Hi, I installed bzr 1.9rc1 on my windows XP machine. When I try to use tortoise I allways get the "ImportError: No module named command" error. The overlays icons shows right on the projects I already have set up. What does this error mean? | |
| [08:35] <jszakmeister|awa> codeRat: it sounds like its using a module that's not installed in the Windows version of Python (the command module is Unix only) | |
| [08:36] <codeRat> so there's no way around? | |
| [08:37] <jszakmeister|awa> dunno. | |
| [08:37] <codeRat> ok, thank you | |
| [08:37] <jszakmeister|awa> I'm not sure how/when that module is used. | |
| [08:37] <codeRat> at least I know what to look for :) | |
| [08:38] <jszakmeister|awa> Looks like bzrlib/shellcomplete.py is the culprit | |
| [08:39] <codeRat> but it strange that a program that is made for windows does use a module for unix :S | |
| [08:39] * jszakmeister|awa agrees | |
| === jszakmeister|awa is now known as jszakmeister | |
| === Guest27644 is now known as ronny | |
| === jszakmeister is now known as jszakmeister|awa | |
| [10:00] <alefteris> hello all. why when i commit with bzr ci -x a_folder, deleted files in the bzr root directory are not being removed? | |
| [10:02] <alefteris> i meant in the bzr branch root directoy | |
| [10:24] <pygi> hi ho | |
| [13:17] <willwill> hello, I want bzr branch to branch my repository then another one | |
| [13:17] <willwill> (like apt-get dependencies) | |
| [13:19] <AfC> Write a shell script? | |
| [13:19] <willwill> AfC, I think svn can do this | |
| [13:20] <AfC> so? | |
| [13:24] <willwill> OK, I found this http://bazaar-vcs.org/NestedTreeSupport | |
| [13:32] <willwill> still not supported yet :( | |
| [19:25] <hno> Argh.. now bzr again downloaded over 10MB of data for a simple pull operation.. nearly all .tix index crap. Have -Dhpss logs if anyone is interested to look into this. bzr 1.8 on both sides, using bzr+ssh:// protocol. | |
| [19:27] <hno> this is a lightweight checkout from a local repository where the branch is bound to the remote repository. | |
| [19:28] <jelmer> hi hno | |
| [19:28] <hno> hi jelmer | |
| [19:28] <jelmer> hopefully one of the Australians can have a look when they wake up | |
| [19:30] <hno> a pull within the local repository seems to do the same thing so it's not due to the lightweigth checkout.. will try it without the bind also. | |
| [19:38] <hno> does the same without the bind as well.. | |
| [19:38] <hno> next, upgrade to 1.9... | |
| [19:41] <berto-> i have a branch of bzr's repo; how can i view the 1.9 release? | |
| [19:41] <berto-> i tried bzr tags but got nothing on the command line. | |
| [19:41] <Peng_> Yeah, there aren't tags. | |
| [19:42] <berto-> how do i find out what rev v1.9 was cut from? | |
| [19:43] <Peng_> The 1.9 release branch is http://bazaar-vcs.org/bzr/bzr.1.9/ . I'd assume it was cut from that. | |
| [19:44] <berto-> since i already have a copy of the dev branch can i pull from there and my local copy will reflect that branch? | |
| [19:44] <berto-> i'm about to try that. | |
| [19:45] <berto-> it would be silly for me to have to rebranch the whole thing when i have the repo already. | |
| [19:46] <Peng_> If you use a shared repo, it won't have to download the data again. | |
| [19:47] <berto-> right, ok, cool. | |
| [19:54] <rocky> jelmer: ready for a simple bzr-svn bug report? :) | |
| [19:55] <jelmer> rocky, always :-) | |
| [19:55] <rocky> jelmer: http://cluebin.appspot.com/pasted/3001 | |
| [19:56] <hno> 19 behaved better. Still not good, but much better. | |
| [19:56] <hno> 1.9 i meant.. | |
| [20:02] <jelmer> rocky, thanks, fixed | |
| [20:04] <Peng_> hno: 1.9 introduces a new index format which should be much more efficient. Of course, it's not compatible with older versions of bzr. | |
| [20:05] <hno> Peng_: The local was already updated to btree, but the remote can not be updated as it's a shared repository. | |
| [20:05] <Peng_> Ah. | |
| [20:08] <hno> Peng_: And I think it's silly. The basic bzr pull/update over bzr+shs SHOLD do a smart call getting a bundle back of the new revisions, not raw reading of the indexes and packs.. | |
| [20:10] <Peng_> Yeah, it /should/. | |
| [20:15] <hno> Peng_: Waiting for a test upgrade of the remote to see how much of a difference the new index format makes in this operation. | |
| [20:26] <hno> bzr upgrade still running... | |
| [20:27] <rocky> jelmer: there a branch i should get? | |
| [20:28] <jelmer> rocky, yes, the 0.4 one | |
| [20:29] <rocky> jelmer: hm, launchpad isn't seeing the fix ... http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~jelmer/bzr-svn/0.4/changes/1741?start_revid=1741 | |
| [20:29] <rocky> http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~jelmer/bzr-svn/0.4/changes rather | |
| [20:29] <jelmer> rocky, launchpad isn't the main location for bzr-svn, it just has a mirror | |
| [20:30] <rocky> ohhh | |
| [20:30] <jelmer> http://people.samba.org/bzr/jelmer/bzr-svn/0.4 | |
| [20:30] <rocky> jelmer: any reason the log isn't up to date when viewing http://people.samba.org/bzr/jelmer/bzr-svn/0.4/ with a browser? | |
| [20:30] <rocky> basically i'm trying to see the last revision so i can just do a manual fix here ;) | |
| [20:31] <jelmer> I don't have the right plugin installed from my current machine | |
| [20:31] <jelmer> so it's not updated atm | |
| [20:31] <rocky> gotcha | |
| [20:34] <meoblast001> hi | |
| [20:35] <rocky> jelmer: how does your bzr/http setup work? you using the stock http smart server or something more ? | |
| [20:36] <jelmer> no, I'm pushing to a remote server using bzr+ssh | |
| [20:36] <jelmer> the location I push to is accessible using http | |
| [20:36] <rocky> gotcha | |
| [20:36] <rocky> i'm a little surprised that there doesn't seem to be any bzr repos out there with r/w using the http smart server | |
| [20:38] <lifeless> rocky: there are | |
| [20:39] <lifeless> rocky: the uk NHS's bzr repos are read-write http(s I think) | |
| [20:39] <hno> lifeless: Hi! | |
| [20:39] <lifeless> hno: hi | |
| [20:39] <rocky> oh cool | |
| [20:39] <lifeless> rocky: on windows with IIS for extra fun :P | |
| [20:39] <rocky> why don't more people use that? i mean r/w http: is way more accessible then proprietary bzr: repos ... is it that much slower or something? | |
| [20:40] <lifeless> rocky: bzr+ssh is what most people use I think, because its basically zero setup | |
| [20:40] <lifeless> bzr: is a registered port with the IANA, so its not that proprietary :P | |
| [20:40] <rocky> i have 1 dedicated box, giving people shell access is not acceptable for my setup ... and i know a lot of people in the same boat... plus people coming from svn backgrounds are accustomed to only dealing with http | |
| [20:41] <lifeless> rocky: sure, but you asked about other people :P | |
| [20:41] <rocky> ;) | |
| [20:41] <lifeless> bbiab, morning $foo | |
| [20:43] <hno> how long is an bzr upgrade supposed to take? | |
| [20:45] <rocky> jelmer: it's too bad easy_install bzr-svn doesn't install bzr-svn properly | |
| [20:46] <jelmer> rocky: install should work though | |
| [20:46] <rocky> jelmer: yeah "python setup.py install" works fine | |
| [20:46] <rocky> but my steps for installing new bzr these days is: virtualenv.py bzr-1.9; cd bzr-1.9; ./bin/easy_install bzr | |
| [20:46] <rocky> it'd be nice if the last step was ./bin/easy_install bzr-svn | |
| [20:47] <lifeless> hno: if its in the same model and local, a few minutes | |
| [20:47] <jelmer> What would be required to support easy_install? I must admit I've never used it | |
| [20:47] <lifeless> hno: what exact command did you run ? | |
| [20:47] <hno> bzr upgrade --format=1.9-rich-root | |
| [20:47] <lifeless> hno: cancel that | |
| [20:48] <lifeless> hno: remove .bzr, rename backup.bzr to .bzr | |
| [20:48] <hno> it was on a copy.. | |
| [20:48] <lifeless> then just cancel it | |
| [20:48] <hno> done, and restored. | |
| [20:48] <lifeless> hno: is this the squid repo ? | |
| [20:48] <hno> yes, still having trobles with those indexes.. | |
| [20:48] <lifeless> hno: 'bzr upgrade --1.9' | |
| [20:49] <lifeless> hno: and you need a 1.9 client to use a 1.9 repository | |
| [20:49] <rocky> jelmer: well it's not really an issue of supporting easy_install, it's making sure bzr-svn is packaged properly to be an egg ... are there any other bzr plugins packaged as eggs? | |
| [20:49] <rocky> i wouldn't think it'd be much work | |
| [20:50] <hno> lifeless: 1.9 on both. | |
| [20:50] <lifeless> hno: cool, was just answering your question from scrollback | |
| [20:50] <jelmer> rocky, I'll happily apply patches that fix easy_install, as long as there's no overhead per release | |
| [20:50] <hno> lifeless: 1.9 did behave better than 1.8, but still very heavy. | |
| [20:51] <rocky> jelmer: should just be a one-time change | |
| [20:52] <hno> lifeless: with the old index format that is. Upgrade of bzr brought the operation down from 8MB of indextransfer to ca 1MB I think. | |
| [20:52] <lifeless> hno: sounds about right | |
| [20:54] <hno> lifeless: followed by 75KB of actual pack data. | |
| [20:59] <hno> lifeless: Corrected numbers. 1.8 read 9576413 of indicies 71598 bytes of packs. 1.9 read 3426251 bytes of indicies, same packs. (from the main squid3 repo with old index format) | |
| [21:00] <lifeless> hno: the btree index will help immensely I think | |
| [21:00] <lifeless> hno: 4K pages, 100-way fanout | |
| [21:02] <lifeless> breakfasttime | |
| [21:03] <hno> lifeless: Testing.. | |
| [21:04] <hno> done. | |
| [21:06] <hno> lifeless: Using 1.9 format on the remote result in a transfer of indicies 448673 bytes, packs 70842 bytes. | |
| [21:08] <jelmer> the smart server should be smarter :-) | |
| [21:21] <lifeless> hno: interesting | |
| [21:32] <hno> packs got a little smaller as upgrade also repacks the repository. | |
| [21:33] <hno> but still, that's at least 445k unwanted overhead.. | |
| [21:35] <lifeless> hno: we're agreed that it should stream | |
| [21:35] <lifeless> hno: I'll need to check and see if we are doing prefetching on btree indices, because 445K of index data is 111 pages | |
| [21:36] <lifeless> which is arge | |
| [21:36] <lifeless> *large* | |
| [21:38] <hno> lifeless: I can tar up my local repository for you to experiment from, if you need a startingpoint to trigger this.. | |
| [21:39] <lifeless> hno: I have a separate performance issue I'm working on at the moment | |
| [21:39] <lifeless> hno: but thanks | |
| [21:40] <hno> lifeless: Ok. I'll keep a copy around for some time anyway. | |
| [21:41] <lifeless> jelmer: bug 295611 - whats the summary? | |
| [21:41] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 295611 in bzr "NoSuchRevision: KnitPackRepository" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/295611 | |
| [21:42] <jelmer> lifeless, basically it's similar to the bug we looked at during the summer | |
| [21:43] * jelmer looks again | |
| [21:43] <jelmer> lifeless, sorry, it's actually related to ghosts | |
| [21:44] <jelmer> where "bzr diff" assumes that the revision info for the last-changed-revision of all files in the tree are present | |
| [21:49] <lifeless> jelmer: I can't parse that. Is a valid rephrasing 'the last-changed-revision is used as the key for the file text'? | |
| [21:49] <jelmer> lifeless, nope | |
| [21:50] <jelmer> lifeless, bzr diff prints the timestamp of the original text of a file and of the new revised one | |
| [21:51] <lifeless> with you so far | |
| [21:51] <jelmer> in order to obtain the timestamp for the old text, it uses the text revision and calls Repository.get_revision(text_revision) | |
| [21:51] <jelmer> if that text_revision happens to be a ghost, things break | |
| [21:51] <lifeless> ah | |
| [21:51] <lifeless> so there are some interactions here | |
| [21:52] <lifeless> we really need to sit down and clean up the ghost handling once and for all | |
| [21:52] <lifeless> the interaction I'm thinking of is: we only copy text (id,X) when we copy revision X | |
| [21:52] <lifeless> so that repository isn't clonable by bzr at all anyhow | |
| [21:52] <lifeless> (as it currently stands) | |
| [21:53] <jelmer> that would break bzr-svn, which usually only pushes lhs revisions | |
| [21:53] <jelmer> that may contain references to texts introduced by rhs revisions | |
| [21:54] <jelmer> *those lhs revisions may contain references to texts introduced by rhs revisions | |
| [21:57] <lifeless> jelmer: 'does break' | |
| [21:58] <lifeless> jelmer: though I think I've mentioned before that having those references isn't strictly valid | |
| [21:58] <lifeless> under the current rules. And thus the need to fix this forever | |
| [21:59] <lifeless> the inventory work being done at the moment will open the door to handling this efficiently and preserving arbitrary revision text values, which would make the revision-being-absent a valid bug | |
| [22:10] <jelmer> lifeless, ah, that makes sense | |
| [22:11] <lifeless> the problem at the moment is that doing 'inventory_delta(X,Y)' is very expensive | |
| [22:11] <lifeless> so we can't tell what texts are new for a set of inventories by doing that, instead what we do is a bit of hack by examining all the delta'd lines | |
| [22:12] <lifeless> the problem there is that fulltext inventories cause every line to be examined, so we end up either copying, or checking-for, the entire tree on every pull of 200 revs (on average) | |
| [22:12] <lifeless> and that is very very bad on big trees; which are also likely to have more committers and thus trigger it more often | |
| [22:19] <yml> I have a quick question regarding bzr-svn and bzr 1.9. I am working to on Ubuntu and as of now I cannot install it because : bzr-svn: Depends: bzr (< 1.8~) but 1.9-1~bazaar1~hardy1 is to be installed | |
| [22:20] <yml> I would like to know if this is going to be solve in a matter of day or if I should downgrade to bzr 1.8 | |
| [22:20] <lifeless> yml: I imagine we just need to upload a new package to the ppa | |
| [22:20] <lifeless> yml: if you are using the ppa | |
| [22:21] <yml> lifeless: Yes I am using PPA | |
| [22:22] <yml> lifeless: else is there a place where I could download bzr-svn .deb ? | |
| [22:23] <jelmer> yml, Debian should have one | |
| [22:23] <jelmer> lifeless, what's the ETA on split-inventories? | |
| [22:25] <lifeless> jelmer: draft results are promising | |
| [22:25] <lifeless> jelmer: no specific timeline, you know how software dev goes | |
| [22:26] <jelmer> lifeless: Ah, cool - how complete is it though? | |
| [22:26] <jelmer> Initial work done? Some things already work ? Only a few tests left that need fixing? | |
| [22:26] <lifeless> chk layer is about 95%, dictionary built on that is ~60% I would say, inventories on that are very thin, mainly need optimisers and tuning call it 70% | |
| [22:27] <lifeless> needs lots of profiling and feedback cycle | |
| [22:27] <lifeless> compression is not really touched, call that 10% | |
| [22:27] <jelmer> ah, so this is the CHK stuff I've seen scrolling past on bazaar-list.. :-) | |
| [22:27] <lifeless> yes | |
| [22:28] <lifeless> chk is content hash key | |
| [22:29] <lifeless> which is the obvious implementation to satisfy a canonical representation with nested hashability | |
| [22:29] <yml> jelmer : Is that the deb that I should download ? | |
| [22:29] <yml> http://packages.debian.org/fr/experimental/bzr-svn | |
| [22:29] <jelmer> yep | |
| [22:30] <lifeless> its slightly more general than git's keys, because its forward extensible (in disk layout) to sha256 etc | |
| [22:30] <jelmer> lifeless, ah, nice | |
| [22:31] <lifeless> CHKMap is a dict built in that layer | |
| [22:31] <lifeless> which as a basic datatype is reusable | |
| [22:46] <yml> ubuntu complains about libsvn1 being to hold ? | |
| [22:48] <jelmer> yml, They probably have different versions of libsvn1 | |
| [22:49] <yml> ok I will wait for a while | |
| [23:21] <fullermd> lifeless: Speaking of inventory stuff... does the new stuff you're working on support referencing unchanged files in a revision? | |
| [23:23] <lifeless> fullermd: how do you mean? | |
| [23:23] <fullermd> bzr ci --unchanged some/file | |
| [23:25] <lifeless> fullermd: no | |
| [23:25] <fullermd> I'm going to give you another chance to answer :) | |
| [23:25] <lifeless> fullermd: no | |
| [23:25] <lifeless> fullermd: because.. | |
| === rocky1 is now known as rocky | |
| [23:28] <jelmer> fullermd, why would you ever want to do that? | |
| [23:28] <fullermd> Well, why would you ever want to commit --unchanged? | |
| [23:29] <fullermd> If there's a reason for the one, there's a reason for the other. | |
| [23:30] <lifeless> fullermd: the last-changed field on inventory entries is derived data; we don't provide (nor should we) a knob to fiddle it; its not included in testaments for instance | |
| [23:30] <poolie> hello | |
| [23:31] <poolie> hello lifeless | |
| [23:31] <lifeless> fullermd: annotating history so you can find a commit that marked 'foo' interesting is really quite orthogonal - I would approach it by adding a rule to the derived data logic that adds a last-change value for the commit, probably by recording in the commit that that path was interesting | |
| [23:31] <lifeless> fullermd: and as such the inventory layer is unaffected - its no more or less capable of doing what you desire than current inventories | |
| [23:31] <lifeless> hi poolie | |
| [23:33] <poolie> i'm going to try running john's packaging script | |
| [23:35] <fullermd> Hm. 'k... it seemed to me that last time we discussed it, you said it needed inventory-level changes, and so would end up falling into the next round of inv work. Guess I misunderstood. | |
| [23:35] <lifeless> fullermd: I think you asked about a variation ;P | |
| [23:35] <lifeless> fullermd: or my thinking has refined | |
| [23:36] <fullermd> Well, we could always use more refinery. Or distillery, anyway. | |
| [23:37] <lifeless> k, time for full screen code, poolie - ping me via skype(chat|voice) when ready | |
| [23:38] <poolie> lifeless: ok, the net here may be a bit slow to actually do voip | |
| [23:38] <poolie> we'll see | |
| [23:41] <fullermd> Dragonfly ended up with git, BTW. | |
| [23:41] <fullermd> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.dragonfly-bsd.kernel/12212 | |
| [23:44] <fullermd> (not overly surprising; hg had a late surge, but git was up 2:1 most of the voting time) | |