From: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 12:17:41 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] line-log: towards a more responsive, incremental 'git log -L'
Message-ID: <459f2978-03f1-a58f-0dec-d0376fec5201@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190818182801.7580-1-szeder.dev@gmail.com>

On 8/18/2019 2:27 PM, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> Line-level log performs a preprocessing step in
> prepare_revision_walk(), during which it filters and rewrites history
> to keep only commits modifying the given line range.  This
> preprocessing causes significant delay before the first commit is
> shown, wastes CPU time when the user asks only for a few commits, and
> does parent rewriting with no way to turn it off.
> 
> This patch series addresses these issues by integrating line-level log
> filtering into the revision walking machinery and making it work
> together with generation number-based topo-ordering (though for now
> only in the case when the user doesn't explicitly asks for parent
> rewriting, which is probably the common case).
> 
> The first two patches are quite straightforward (and arguably somewhat
> unrelated), but the rest deals with history traversal and parent
> rewriting, which I don't usually do, hence the RFC.
> 
> 
> SZEDER Gábor (5):
>   completion: offer '--(no-)patch' among 'git log' options
>   line-log: remove unused fields from 'struct line_log_data'
>   t4211-line-log: add tests for parent oids
>   line-log: more responsive, incremental 'git log -L'
>   line-log: try to use generation number-based topo-ordering

Hi Szeder,

I was taking inventory of our issues especially around history now
that the changed-path Bloom filters are close to wrapping up. What's
the status on this RFC? Looking at it now, I understand the situation
better and could help review a bit more than before. Do you have more
context as to the situation on this series?

Thanks,
-Stolee