Re: I want to release a "git-1.0"

From: David Lang <david.lang@digitalinsight.com>
Date: Jun 1, 2005, 20:06 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0506011304001.21267@qynat.qvtvafvgr.pbz>
In-Reply-To: <7vhdgismo0.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Tue, 31 May 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

>>>>>> "DL" == David Lang <david.lang@digitalinsight.com> writes:
>
> DL> Hmm, thinking out loud. would it help to look at the deltify scripts
> DL> and let them find the major chunks and then look in detail only when
> DL> that fails?
>
> It's unclear to me which part you are trying to help with
> deltify algorithm [*1*].

I was thinking that the speedups (only look for similar sized files, etc) would help narrow the search. Also each chunk that's different should be able to be able to be annotated as a chunk, instead of by individual line

Show 6 quoted lines

> Internally, git-diff-cache -B -C is used which does use the
> deltify to locate complete rewrites, renames and copies (that's
> why the script is so slow).  For passing on and assigning blames
> line by line, parsing "diff --unified=0" output was a lot easier
> for this script and that was what I did in this quick-and-dirty
> version.

I was under the impressin that the deltafy stuff was significantly faster then you are suggeting that it is here

> [Footnotes]
>
> *1* David says "deltify" and Nico calls it "deltafy".  I am not
> a native speaker so I cannot tell, but which one is correct?

Nico is correct

David Lang

-- 
There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. And the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies.
  -- C.A.R. Hoare