From: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 03:46:30 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] git.c: binary-search builtin commands Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7v4o85njjz.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> 2011/2/16 Junio C Hamano : > Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy   writes: >> Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy >> --- >>   2011/2/15 Junio C Hamano : >>   > I did this myself the other day, as I think it simply is a good project >>   > hygiene.  If this were 1/2 of a series followed by 2/2 that runs binary >>   > search in the table, that would make it make more sense ;-) >> >>   I did think the array was binary-searched and nearly claimed "git-stage >>   won't work because it's in wrong order". > > Heh, that "binary search" was a tongue-in-cheek comment.  I am sorry that > you took it too seriously. > >>   This patch won't give any performance gain, but it would force >>   people to keep the array in order :-) > > That is exactly why I discarded what I did the other day.  Without an > active mechanism to force the orderedness, such a change simply introduces > a downside of letting a mistake go unnoticed, without any real upside (as > you measured and saw no performance gain). > > A better project hygine is a good thing to aim for, and I would imagine > that you could add "--verify-builtin-command-table" as an unadvertised > option to "git" wrapper, and make t/t0000-basic.sh call it to minimize the > downside risk.  But without such an active measure to prevent mistakes, we > would be relying on somebody getting caught on a ticking bomb and > reporting it, which is not a good tradeoff between risk and reward. Ah, OK. Just drop this patch. I don't think doing binary search gains us much anyway. -- Duy