Re: [PATCH] git-describe: Die early if there are no possible descriptions

From: Björn Steinbrink <b.steinbrink@gmx.de>
Date: Aug 5, 2009, 15:42 UTC
Message-ID: <20090805154205.GA17792@atjola.homenet>
In-Reply-To: <20090805153411.GG1033@spearce.org>

On 2009.08.05 08:34:12 -0700, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:

Show 22 quoted lines

> Bj?rn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de> wrote:
> > If we found no refs that may be used for git-describe with the current
> > options, then die early instead of pointlessly walking the whole history.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Bj?rn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de>
> > ---
> > In git.git with all the tags dropped, this makes "git describe" go down
> > from 0.244 to 0.003 seconds for me. This is especially noticeable with
> > "git submodule" which calls describe with increasing levels of allowed
> > refs to be matched. Without tags, this means that it walks the whole
> > history in the submodule twice (first annotated, then plain tags), just
> > to find out that it can't describe the thing anyway.
> > 
> > I'm not particularly sure about found_names actually counting the found
> > names, it was just out of the thought that maybe the walking code could
> > make use of it, but I didn't actually check that and ran out of time, so
> > I'm sending this version, hoping that it doesn't suck too much.
> 
> This seems reasonable to me.  Really you don't need found_names
> to be a counter, but could just always set it to 1 every time the
> add_to_known_names function is called.  All you care about is that
> add_to_known_names was invoked at least once.

OK.

> Also, I really think that first paragraph after the --- should
> have been part of the commit message.  The message above doesn't
> justify the change, even if it is fairly trivial, without that
> additional explanation.

Oh, d'oh, that's even what I intended to do (the original commit message was written in even more of a hurry than the mail itself), but messed up. Will re-send (also with found_names turned boolean)

Thanks, Björn