Re: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2019, #03; Tue, 16)
- From
- Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
- Date
- Apr 17, 2019, 09:52 UTC
- Message-ID
- <adb4a578-9bc6-f017-5817-cd045dcb0a32@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <87d0lmatr1.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>
On 16/04/2019 15:51, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
Show 28 quoted lines
> > On Tue, Apr 16 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> * pw/rebase-i-internal-rfc (2019-03-21) 12 commits >> - rebase -i: run without forking rebase--interactive >> - rebase: use a common action enum >> - rebase -i: use struct rebase_options in do_interactive_rebase() >> - rebase -i: use struct rebase_options to parse args >> - rebase -i: use struct object_id for squash_onto >> - rebase -i: use struct commit when parsing options >> - rebase -i: remove duplication >> - rebase -i: combine rebase--interactive.c with rebase.c >> - rebase: use OPT_RERERE_AUTOUPDATE() >> - rebase: rename write_basic_state() >> - sequencer: always discard index after checkout >> - Merge branch 'ag/sequencer-reduce-rewriting-todo' into pw/rebase-i-internal-rfc >> (this branch uses ag/sequencer-reduce-rewriting-todo.) >> >> The internal implementation of "git rebase -i" has been updated to >> avoid forking a separate "rebase--interactive" process. >> >> Comments? Is this ready? > > I gave this some stress testing/review in your infra, works for me so > far, and a good performance improvement. > > My only problem with it is that the commit message doesn't note just > quite how awesome it is, but I can live with that :)
Thanks for testing this, I'll send a re-roll that mentions the performance improvement. I'm still surprised by it, are you seeing an improvement in production as well as on the perf test you mentioned before? I wonder if some of the improvement is due to ag/sequencer-reduce-rewriting-todo if that wasn't in master when you ran the benchmarks but I haven't had time to investigate.
Best Wishes
Phillip