Re: [Quilt-dev] Another shell re-write of backup-files.

[Kaz Kylheku]

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 21:00:12 +0100, Jean Delvare <address@hidden>
wrote:
> On Friday 18 March 2011 05:50:18 pm Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:18:27 +0100, Jean Delvare <address@hidden>
>>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Kaz,
>> >
>> > On Friday 18 March 2011 02:26:27 am Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> >> Hey everyone,
>> >>
>> >> Recently I became interested in a quilt that consists only of
>> >> shell scripts.
>> >
>> > You're not the only one. I'm happy to see momentum grow in this
>> > direction.
>>
>> I did some further hacking on this last night, sliding the program
>> under quilt and getting it to work, including adding new files,
>> and pushes and pops with file creating/deleting patches.
> 
> That's not enough. Quilt comes with a non-regression test suite, which 
> your script should pass. Try it: "make check". I did, your code failed 
> (even the update you send half an hour ago.)

I made a few more fixes and overall hardening, like making sure
things are quoted and -- is used to that an argument doesn't look
like an option and such. I haven't addressed the FreeBSD portability,
nor that one potentially fragile sed edit that remains 
(which I can eliminate by cd-ing to a directory to avoid having
to stream-edit the list of path names).

It's now here: http://kylheku.com/~kaz/backup-files

I downloaded the quilt 0.48 tarball and used its test suite to run
all 41 test scripts. There was a failure in just one of the commands
in one of the scripts, so I used "make -k" to get past that.

This only failed because patch put some terminal emulator
codes into the output to do highlighting or colorizing,
and it happens with the stock backup-files too:

  The next patch would create the file create, =~ The next patch would
create the file `?create'?,

In all other respects, it is the expected output from patch.
Not bad: first attempt at "make check" passes!

This is the "make -k check" time with my "backup-files"

real    0m42.383s
user    0m0.972s
sys     0m0.808s

This is with the C version:

real    0m43.340s
user    0m0.944s
sys     0m0.836s

This is on an NFS filesystem; the variance between the real times
is greater than between above two. The user and sys times are quite
stable between runs.

Basically, the performance is about the same.

Now, local disk. Actually no, forget that, let's use Linux tmpfs:

script:

real    0m25.221s
user    0m0.928s
sys     0m0.788s

C:

real    0m25.416s
user    0m1.052s
sys     0m0.896s

Again, it's about the same thing.