Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] rebase -i run without forking rebase--interactive
- From
- Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
- Date
- Mar 21, 2019, 14:40 UTC
- Message-ID
- <0f1ee77b-90e6-ef61-0aee-ff182c20a98c@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <87y359cfjj.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>
On 20/03/2019 23:05, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
Show 24 quoted lines
>
> On Tue, Mar 19 2019, Phillip Wood wrote:
>
>> From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
>>
>> When the builtin rebase starts an interactive rebase it parses the
>> options and then repackages them and forks `rebase--interactive`. This
>> series refactors rebase--interactive so that interactive rebases can
>> be started by the builtin rebase without forking. My motivation was to
>> make it easier to debug the sequencer but this should help future
>> maintainability.
>>
>> This series involves some code movement so viewing the diffs with
>> --color-moved is recommended.
>>
>> These patches are based on a merge of master [e902e9bcae ("The second
>> batch", 2019-03-11)] and ag/sequencer-reduce-rewriting-todo ed35d18841
>> ("rebase--interactive: move transform_todo_file()", 2019-03-05). They
>> can be fetched from the tag rebase-i-no-fork/rfc at
>> https://github.com/phillipwood/git.git
>
> Just a that the t/perf/*rebase* numbers look much better with this. I
> don't have these in front of me anymore, but over 10 runs with -O3 one
> of those long-runnings test was 30% faster.That's surprising I wouldn't expect that much change as the time taken to fork shouldn't be that significant compared to the overall running time. I'll make a note to have a look at those tests.
> Another one (rebase -i) went from 0.02 to 0.01 sec, with that short > amount of time I wonder (but didn't dig) if the test itself is broken...
Yeah, that sounds suspicious
Thanks for sharing those results
Phillip