Re: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2018, #03; Wed, 25)

From: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 26, 2018, 15:26 UTC
Message-ID: <CACsJy8CuVRy4UPEwXJJYAjePEz5zjKMLhRjh9UFw0DPYTzobkw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqmuxr4r6n.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> * nd/pack-objects-pack-struct (2018-04-16) 15 commits
>  ...
>
>  "git pack-objects" needs to allocate tons of "struct object_entry"
>  while doing its work, and shrinking its size helps the performance
>  quite a bit.
>
>  What's the doneness of this thing?  The interdiff since previous
>  rounds looked reasonable, but I didn't see this round otherwise
>  scrutinized by reviewers.  The numbers given in the commit near the
>  tip do look impressive, though ;-)

I think it's ok to move it to next, though I'd prefer to move it to master just right after a release so it gets tested for a whole release cycle. This also gives Jeff a chance to check it after he's back (if he wants to).

Show 12 quoted lines

> * nd/repack-keep-pack (2018-04-16) 7 commits
>  ...
>
>  "git gc" in a large repository takes a lot of time as it considers
>  to repack all objects into one pack by default.  The command has
>  been taught to pretend as if the largest existing packfile is
>  marked with ".keep" so that it is left untouched while objects in
>  other packs and loose ones are repacked.
>
>  What's the doneness of this thing?  The interdiff since the earlier
>  one looked reasonable, but I didn't see this round otherwise
>  scrutinized by reviewers.

This one should be safer than the previous one. I think it's ok to move to next.

Anyway I'll re-read these two series this weekend to see if I could spot anything new.

-- 
Duy