Re: 66 patches and counting
- From
- Martin Fick <mfick@codeaurora.org>
- Date
- Oct 6, 2011, 22:16 UTC
- Message-ID
- <201110061616.39381.mfick@codeaurora.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <4E8CCC55.9070408@alum.mit.edu>
On Wednesday, October 05, 2011 03:29:57 pm Michael Haggerty wrote:
Show 15 quoted lines
> My renovation of refs.c [1] is currently at 66 patches > and counting. What can I say?: (1) I like to make > changes in the smallest irreducible steps and (2) there > is a lot that needed to be done in refs.c. > > When I'm done, is it OK to dump a patch series like that > on the git mailing list? Is it pointless because nobody > will review them anyway? Is a big pile of changes like > this welcome in any form? Would it be better to convey > the changes via git itself (e.g., github) rather than > via emails? > > Michael > > [1] hierarchical-refs at git://github.com/mhagger/git.git
Michael,
I downloaded your patch series and tested it on my repos.
Here are some of the timings I saw with your branch as is:
* git clone 2:50m (same) * full fetch changes (> 1 hour) (bad!) * git branch (unpacked, ungced) .7s (good!) * git branch (packed, gced) .18s (~>same) * git checkout (unpacked, ungced) 10.5s (~>same) * git checkout (packed, gced) 9.5 (~>same) * noop fetch changes (unpacked, ungced) 14s (~>same) * noop fetch changes (packed, gced) 12s (same)
For the full fetch, I estimated, things were scrolling by slow enough that after about 15 min I interrupted it. I suspect it might be at least 6 times longer (if rate stayed the same).
Here are the best timings for all the good patches that others have submitted to fix many of the previous problems I brought up:
* git clone 2:50m * full fetch changes 4:50m * git branch (unpacked, ungced) 9s * git branch (packed, gced) .05s * git checkout (unpacked, ungced) 9s * git checkout (packed, gced) 8s * noop fetch changes (unpacked, ungced) 12s * noop fetch changes (packed, gced) 12s
(my internal patches bring full fetch down to 2:50m)
It would be nice if you could rebase your work on top of some of the other patches also so that I could see those results. I might give that a try if I have the time and it is easy (or I might rebase those patches on yours).
Thanks,
-Martin
-- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. which is a member of Code Aurora Forum