Re: [PATCH] write-tree performance problems
- From
- Chris Mason <mason@suse.com>
- Date
- Apr 19, 2005, 21:08 UTC
- Message-ID
- <200504191708.23536.mason@suse.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <Pine.LNX.4.58.0504191143220.19286@ppc970.osdl.org>
On Tuesday 19 April 2005 15:03, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Show 15 quoted lines
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Chris Mason wrote: > > Very true, you can't replace quilt with git without ruining both of them. > > But it would be nice to take a quilt tree and turn it into a git tree > > for merging purposes, or to make use of whatever visualization tools > > might exist someday. > > Fair enough. The thing is, going from quilt->git really is a pretty "big > decision", since it's the decision that says "I will now really commit all > this quilt changes forever and ever". > > Which is also why I think it's actually ok to take a minute to do 100 > quilt patches. This is not something you do on a whim. It's something > you'd better think about. It's turning a very fluid environment into a > unchangable, final thing. >
It's only final when someone pulls from you...for me, all the trees would be temporary.
[ ... subtree tree hashes in the index file ... ]
Show 7 quoted lines
> I'll think about it. I'd love to speed up write-tree, and keeping track of > it in the index is a nice little trick, but it's not quite high enough up > on my worries for me to act on it right now. > > But if you want to try to see how nasty it would be to add tree index > entries to the index file at "write-tree" time automatically, hey... >
Makes sense, I'll let the merge development frenzy die down and give it a try one weekend. I might look into making it a special case of the merging index changes, since some of the concepts seem similar.
Regardless, putting it into the index somehow should be fastest, I'll see what I can do.
-chris