Open rshipp opened 8 years ago
(ccr)[george@nayaka chaser] (master): time chaser update
Updates: docker-1.10.2-1 fish-2.2.0-3 nodejs-bower-1.4.1-1 perl-test-exception-0.40-1 popcorntime-bin-0.3.8.2-1 python2-virtualenv-1.11.4-1 python3-inflection-0.3.1-2 ruby-bundler-1.11.2-1 tcpdump-4.7.3-1 the_silver_searcher-0.30.0-1
Continue with installation? [Y/n] ^CTraceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/george/.virtualenvs/ccr/bin/chaser", line 9, in <module>
load_entry_point('chaser==0.8.1', 'console_scripts', 'chaser')()
File "/data/george/dev/chaser/chaser/__init__.py", line 52, in main
args.func(args)
File "/data/george/dev/chaser/chaser/chaser.py", line 139, in update
response = prompt.prompt(_("Continue with installation?"))
File "/data/george/dev/chaser/chaser/prompt.py", line 19, in prompt
response = user_input("{message} [{y}/{n}] ".format(message=message, y=yes, n=no))
File "/data/george/dev/chaser/chaser/prompt.py", line 6, in user_input
return input(message)
KeyboardInterrupt
real 0m18.023s
user 0m1.290s
sys 0m0.057s
Can this be reopened? I have 8 CCR packages installed and chaser update
is still taking much longer than ccr -Syu --ccronly
.
Here's a short script I made for getting results from several runs at once. (My current network connection is flaky, so timing each command once wouldn't give very reliable results.) Out of 30 tests pairs, 25 of them were faster with ccr
. Also, ccr
had a minimum time of 0.869s (and two other runs under 1s) vs chaser
's minimum of 6.274s (slower than 23 of ccr
's runs).
(Sorry for putting the walls of text in the comment; attachments weren't working for me.)
#!/bin/bash
# Make a table of interleaved `ccr` and `chaser` update timings
export TIMEFORMAT="%Es" # only show seconds of elapsed time
fmt='%5s %7s %7s\n' # table format widths
printf "$fmt" 'test#' ccr chaser # header
t() { (time "$@" &>/dev/null) 2>&1; } # get just a command's time
for i in {01..30}; do
printf "$fmt" $i "$(t ccr -Syu --ccronly)" "$(t chaser update)"
done
test# ccr chaser
01 3.010s 6.682s
02 6.178s 12.826s
03 3.881s 8.157s
04 5.333s 10.919s
05 19.489s 14.457s
06 20.066s 16.753s
07 23.215s 7.918s
08 3.071s 20.309s
09 5.137s 35.885s
10 25.760s 7.628s
11 3.197s 6.806s
12 1.909s 12.152s
13 2.406s 18.724s
14 10.109s 29.502s
15 1.711s 8.349s
16 6.266s 9.639s
17 2.011s 21.345s
18 6.366s 8.502s
19 6.770s 6.721s
20 1.252s 6.274s
21 2.081s 13.155s
22 0.951s 8.222s
23 1.567s 7.094s
24 3.414s 9.560s
25 1.522s 8.717s
26 0.869s 9.539s
27 3.314s 7.486s
28 1.690s 6.570s
29 0.901s 7.797s
30 3.387s 9.120s
Hi, thanks for the heads up. I'm guessing the URL just needs updated to point to the new domain. I've opened a PR for this, but I'm not sure who manages this these days... maybe @totte knows? You might want to open an issue on the Chakra bugtracker instead to get more visibility - I think this is the place to ask for an update of the 'python-ccr' package.
If you can find someone willing to update the Chakra package, I'm happy to take care of whatever needs updating on the python-ccr side and tag a new version for them.