From: David Turner Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:08:39 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/19] hack: watchman/untracked cache mashup Message-ID: <1458238119.9385.15.camel@twopensource.com> In-Reply-To: On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 20:06 +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:56 AM, David Turner < > dturner@twopensource.com> wrote: > > > So if we detect an updated file that's not in the index, we are > > > prepared to invalidate that path, correct? We may invalidate more > > > than > > > necessary if that's true. Imagine a.o is already ignored. If it's > > > rebuilt, we should not need to update untracked cache. > > > > Yes, that's true. But it would be true with the mtime system too. > > This > > is no worse, even if it's no better. In-tree builds are a hard > > case to > > support, and I'm totally OK with a system that encourages out-of > > -tree > > builds. > > > > We could check if it's ignored, but then if someone changes their > > gitignore, we could be wrong. > > > > Or we could suggest that people make their watchmanignore match > > their > > gitignore. > > So your purpose is to reduce stat() on those "quiet" directories? Yes. Twitter's repo is perhaps somewhat unusual in that it has a very "bushy" directory structure -- tens of thousands of directories.