From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 08:23:29 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: work around the tested repo having an index.lock
Message-ID: <20170604082328.wdjb5yvx24w7biwk@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CACBZZX4eCJJS6iaod+tWFF5M998Y5x88SdYR2ZekAJeeOiU8ug@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 09:55:15AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

> > Is a local clone really much slower these days? Wouldn't it is use
> > hard links too?
> > By the way the many properties that are preserved might not be worth
> > preserving as they could make results depend a lot on the current
> > state of the original repo.
> 
> AFAICT from some quick testing it'll hardlink the objects/ dir, so
> e.g. you preserve the loose objects. Making the results depend on the
> state of the original repo is a feature, but perhaps it should be opt
> in. It's very useful to be able to take a repo that's accrued e.g. a
> month's worth of refs & loose objects and test that v.s. a fresh
> clone.
> 
> But there are other things that ever a hardlink local clone doesn't
> preserve which might be worth preserving...

Yes. Reflogs are one example. They aren't copied at all as part of a
clone, but they impact pruning and repacking.

-Peff