GNU bug report logs - #19390
25.0.50; `package-activate' is too slow

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#19390: closed (25.0.50; `package-activate' is too slow)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 19:50:02 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your message dated Thu, 18 Dec 2014 21:49:25 +0200
with message-id <54932FC5.9090509 <at> yandex.ru>
and subject line Re: bug#19390: 25.0.50; `package-activate' is too slow
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #19390,
regarding 25.0.50; `package-activate' is too slow
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
19390: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=19390
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 25.0.50; `package-activate' is too slow
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 19:34:50 +0200

Before c13baa10d55ec863d3ceaea48c6b2959ece98198, `package-initialize'
takes ~100 ms on my machine, with 92 packages.

After this revision, it takes ~7.7 seconds.

Provided there's no obvious low-hanging fruit for performance
improvement, we should at least avoid exercising the new logic when
Emacs is just launching. There's simply nothing to reload yet.

In GNU Emacs 25.0.50.1 (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 3.10.8)
 of 2014-12-14 on axl
Repository revision: eaf25ad549dc5a9b26089f588e0a80268708a3d1
Windowing system distributor `The X.Org Foundation', version 11.0.11501000
System Description:	Ubuntu 14.04.1 LTS

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
To: bruce.connor.am <at> gmail.com
Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>, 19390-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#19390: 25.0.50; `package-activate' is too slow
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 21:49:25 +0200

On 12/18/2014 09:01 PM, Artur Malabarba wrote:
> Sorry. The rest of the message was just babling anyway.
> I was just saying the performance hit of the current implementation is
> negligible when upgrading.
> Which is the same thing Stefan is saying.

Oh well. I also wrote that my implementation is shorter and somewhat 
easier to read, but since no one else seems to think so, closing.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.