Re: [PATCH v2] add status config and command line options for rename detection
- From
Ben Peart <peartben@gmail.com>
- Date
- May 11, 2018, 12:50 UTC
- Message-ID
- <276c981b-3b6b-4034-7aaa-dbfcba4ae3f1@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CABPp-BGL2Fcnj0QNu+D3wfOU5q8MuizUGJyzrEc7FXy9Q9aA_A@mail.gmail.com>
On 5/10/2018 6:31 PM, Elijah Newren wrote:
Show 40 quoted lines
> Hi Ben,
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:09 PM, Ben Peart <peartben@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/10/2018 12:19 PM, Elijah Newren wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 7:16 AM, Ben Peart <Ben.Peart@microsoft.com>
>>> wrote:
>
>> Given the example perf impact is arbitrary (the actual example that
>> triggered this patch took status from 2+ hours to seconds) and can't be
>> replicated using the current performance tools in git, I'm just going drop
>> the specific numbers. I believe the patch is worth while just to give users
>> the flexibility to control these behaviors.
>
> Your parenthetical statement of timing going from hours to seconds I
> think would be great; I don't think we need precise numbers.
>
>>>> + if ((intptr_t)rename_score_arg != -1) {
>>>> + s.detect_rename = DIFF_DETECT_RENAME;
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd still prefer this was a
>>> if (s.detect_rename < DIFF_DETECT_RENAME)
>>> s.detect_rename = DIFF_DETECT_RENAME;
>>>
>>> If a user specifies they are willing to pay for copy detection, but
>>> then just passes --find-renames=40% because they want to find more
>>> renames, it seems odd to disable copy detection to me.
>>>
>>
>> I agree and will change it. It is unfortunate this will behave differently
>> than it does with merge. Fixing the merge behavior to match is outside the
>> scope of this patch.
>
> I agree that changing merge is outside the scope of this patch, but
> I'm curious what change you have in mind for it to "make it match".
> In particular, merge-recursive.c already has (or will shortly have)
> + if (opts.detect_rename > DIFF_DETECT_RENAME)
> + opts.detect_rename = DIFF_DETECT_RENAME;
> from your commit 85b460305ce7 ("merge: add merge.renames config
> setting", 2018-05-02), This is a good point that I missed. With that recent change to merge, it no longer matters that the settings parsing code caps detect_rename at DIFF_DETECT_RENAME because it will cap it later anyway so there is no need to change the merge option behavior.
Show 14 quoted lines
> The one place copy detection does make sense inside a merge is for the
> diffstat shown at the end (from builtin/merge.c), but it currently
> isn't controlled by any configuration setting at all. When it is
> hooked up, it'd probably store the value separately from
> merge-recursive's internal o->{diff,merge}_detect_rename anyway,
> because builtin/merge.c's diffstat should be controlled by the
> relevant confiig settings and flags (merge.renames, diff.renames,
> -Xfind-renames, etc.) regardless of which merge strategy (recursive,
> resolve, octopus, ours, ort) is employed. And when that is hooked up,
> I agree with you that it should look like what you've done with
> status.renames here. In fact, if you'd like to take a crack at it, I
> think you'd do a great job. :-) If not, it's on my list of things to
> do.
> Thanks but I'll leave that to you. :) I have a large backlog of patches I would like to see pushed through the mailing list into master. We've been sitting on this one for over a year. If the current rate is any indication, it will take man years to get caught up.
Show 10 quoted lines
>>> Testcases look good. It'd be nice to also add a few testcases where >>> copy detection is turned on -- in particular, I'd like to see one with >>> --find-renames=$DIFFERENT_THAN_DEFAULT being passed when >>> merge.renames=copies. >>> >> >> OK. I also added tests to verify the settings correctly impact commit. > > Nice! >