Re: [RFC/PATCH 4/4] inexact rename detection eye candy
- From
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
- Date
- Feb 19, 2011, 15:57 UTC
- Message-ID
- <AANLkTik=pd3vVMERz=H3sp835Ft8OvrOzBE4PUS7vrO7@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20110219102533.GD22508@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> > This feels wrong because it's in such a deep library function. At the > very least we probably need some way to turn it off, so callers can pass > along any --quiet or --no-progress indicators.
Yeah.
> I made it update progress for each of the rename_src * rename_dst > similarity estimates. We could just as easily count rename_dst items we > look at, but hey, it's eye candy, and obviously bigger numbers are > better.
Uhh. My only big reaction to your patch was literally "why don't you just do it on the 'dst' items". I really don't think bigger numbers are better, and if you have _so_ many sources that each dst takes so long that you'd want updates at that granularity, you're too screwed anyway.
Don't make the "update progress" be part of the O(n^2) problem.
Linus