From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:17:57 GMT
Subject: Re: What's in git.git
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0603101215100.25810@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <20060310104443.GA4491@c165.ib.student.liu.se>

Hi,

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Fredrik Kuivinen wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 10:05:41PM +1300, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> > On 3/6/06, Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> > > - The deathmatch between annotate/blame (Ryan Anderson, Fredrik
> > >   Kuivinen, me cheerleading)
> > 
> > Add fuel to the fire  ;-) Can git-blame take cached git-rev-list
> > output like annotate does with -S?
> > 
> 
> Currently it cannot do that. How is that option used?

The history is linearized, and the commits are ordered accordingly, then 
to be passed to git-annotate/-blame.

> If you want to make annotate/blame faster for certain files you might as 
> well cache the output of annotate/blame instead of the git-rev-list 
> output, no?
> 
> What am I missing?

Two things:

- the history is growing, and
- it would be inefficient/error-prone to save the annotates for files 

Hth,
Dscho