Launchpad's definitely getting faster, but it's still not in the same ballpark. bzr, too, seems a lot slower on many operations (although I'm not sure how much of this is due to lp, and how much is due to git) despite having been sped up a lot over the years.

Here's my incredibly unscientific (maybe these do significantly different amounts of work, I'm not sure) test for checking out Twisted using lp:twisted and github's powdahound/twisted:

bzr: 63.29s user 2.80s system 1:43.32 total
git: 6.93s user 3.28s system 0:45.75 total

That data is skewed in bzr's favour because someone started downloading something huge halfway the git test. My point is that git's pretty fast, not even particularly so for clone (because the slowest part there is the network). Most of the work I've ever done on Twisted has been using bzr-svn, and it has been at times noticeably slow. (but not quite frustratingly so).

Either way, I think this is probably the wrong discussion. Most of the time I hear "Launchpad's UX is bad for coders, and it's slow", not "Launchpad is slow and it's UX is bad".

True, but I don't see how it works better than github's pull requests.
 

Yes, that's a good point. I like that it's open source (although it has an unfortunate license). Is the patching of Launchpad by third parties followed by those patches landing in production a common occurrence?