Hi,

after the review and more suggestions I would like to post the current
version of the patch:

* EAPI aware (ulm)
* Better documentation
* Some clean ups (a lot of people)

V-Li

--
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://www.faulhammer.org/>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Perhaps add "> /dev/null" to the pushd/popd calls? To get rid of
unnecessary output.

- - Necoro
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkmxTBcACgkQ4UOg/zhYFuDlRgCfcTwOVG42RsKCfWv9dyaxFPTk
ZSoAnAnARobr31NhI78sf6DwW2H9HkHy
=HKj7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

René 'Necoro' Neumann <lists@necoro.eu>:
> Perhaps add "> /dev/null" to the pushd/popd calls? To get rid of
> unnecessary output.

Done in the development branch of the Bazaar overlay. It will get
some testing and within two weeks I want to bring it to the tree.

V-Li

- --
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://www.faulhammer.org/>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkmyaW4ACgkQNQqtfCuFneObGACfcm1Uk3xPxJ XyEsPEMfilu6Jg
c9cAnj5/rgJk8Y0O1VBChM0ZLi73HXKP
=kZ84
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I have some doubts about the usage of "co --lightweight" instead of the
plain "co". The only reason I can see is the reduced disk-space needed.
Because concerning time, the lightweight checkouts take (way) longer...

Just some bash-time tests done with the portage bzr-repo (lportage --
6470 revisions). I used bzr-1.12:

method fetch export
====== ===== ======

branch: ~47s / ~2s
stacked branch: ~68s / ~49s
checkout: ~46s / ~2s
lightweight co: ~50s / ~51s

As one can easily see: While the fetch time for co and lw-co are more or
less equal, the export time is not. As one can say, that each package is
at least exported as often as updated (if not more often), this makes
the lw co operation more or less a no-no. (Waiting one minute to get a
snapshot of a medium-sized project? ... ehm - NO)

But for completeness: size with co: 24MB - with lw-co: 3,1MB

So I'd vote for switching back to using normal checkouts (or branches -
they don't really differ in bzr for that matter).

Regards,
Necoro
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkm3CeIACgkQ4UOg/zhYFuAmmQCeL/BqnCClR5CBapvAvO3Og0Tu
MBEAoINCwaNfnAYkFyxmaB2kR5BeHMsj
=37WD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

René 'Necoro' Neumann schrieb:
> As one can easily see: While the fetch time for co and lw-co are more or
> less equal, the export time is not. As one can say, that each package is
> at least exported as often as updated (if not more often), this makes
> the lw co operation more or less a no-no. (Waiting one minute to get a
> snapshot of a medium-sized project? ... ehm - NO)

One note - just saw the following for the bzr-1.13_rc1 release notes:
"Lightweight Checkouts and Stacked Branches should both be much faster
over remote connections. Building the working tree now batches up
requests into approx 5MB requests, rather than a separate request for
each file. (John Arbash Meinel)"

So perhaps it is improved for this new release. Have to retest soon.

(I also wonder, why the hell the export of the lw-co takes so long ...
it more or less just needs to copy the files... I cannot see the need to
fetch each file again from the remote repo. Perhaps this is worth a
bzr-bug.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkm3C9MACgkQ4UOg/zhYFuDAuwCePrNj2rQ4au99QziYZl7qpe9a
PFYAn2ZuRqp3vpNLUwcASN6wk8NaqL/s
=Li4s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----