git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: recur status on linux-2.6

From
Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date
Aug 13, 2006, 16:58 UTC
Message-ID
<7v64gwmv2j.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To
<Pine.LNX.4.63.0608131550290.10541@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> I tested git-merge-recur vs. git-merge-recursive on the linux-2.6 
> repository last night. It contains 2298 two-head merges. _All_ of them 
> come out identically with -recur as compared to -recursive (looking at 
> the resulting index only).
Nice.
> That was the good news. The bad news is: it _seems_, that -recur is only 
> about 6x faster than -recursive, not 10x, and this number becomes smaller, 
> the longer the merge takes. So I see a startup effect here, probably.

Recreating the tip of "next" (10a6653) might be fun. I do not know why, but it ended up having 14 merge bases. The speed-up is about 6x, and the resulting half-merge is worse than recursive (not using rerere cache).

Previous: Johannes SchindelinNext: Johannes Schindelin
Message 2 of 10 in “recur status on linux-2.6”
  1. Johannes SchindelinAug 13, 2006
  2. Junio C HamanoAug 13, 2006
  3. Johannes SchindelinAug 13, 2006
  4. Junio C HamanoAug 13, 2006
  5. Johannes SchindelinAug 13, 2006
  6. Junio C HamanoAug 18, 2006
  7. Johannes SchindelinAug 18, 2006
  8. Fredrik KuivinenAug 19, 2006
  9. Junio C HamanoAug 22, 2006
  10. Johannes SchindelinAug 22, 2006

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.