[PATCH v2] Tweaked notes on gfb<->bfg differences

From: Roberto Tyley <roberto.tyley@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 18, 2013, 14:25 UTC
Message-ID: <1387376716-72615-1-git-send-email-roberto.tyley@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqr49ak8fi.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On 18 December 2013 05:57, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

> The first bullet point may be somewhat misleading, though.  Nothing
> stops your script you use in filter-branch from processing blobs
> belonging to a single tree in parallel---the user just needs to do a
> bit more work to do so.

Thanks, I've moved this entry down and clarified the capabilities - I think there's quite a big difference to the user (of a multi-core machine) as to whether parallelism happens by default, or whether they have to work out how to introduce it into the operation they're trying to perform.

Show 7 quoted lines

> I think the second point is the most characteristic in BFG (and that
> is what allows easy parallelization of the filtering).  Also, it
> cannot be stressed enough that the "removing unwanted contents" use
> case can take advantage of the "bad contents in a blob is bad, no
> matter where in the tree and when in the history the blob appears".
> That is what makes BFG particularly shine  for the use case. Its
> design very much aligns the objective the use case wants to achieve.

I've moved this up to the first bullet-point and added text emphasising the significance the constraint plays in making the BFG work quickly while satisfying the common use-case.

Roberto Tyley (1):
  docs: add filter-branch notes on The BFG

 Documentation/git-filter-branch.txt | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

-- 
1.8.3.4 (Apple Git-47)