Re: Performance issue of 'git branch'

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jul 26, 2009, 10:16 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0907261214220.8306@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>
In-Reply-To: <20090726075455.GA22525@glandium.org>

Hi,

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, Mike Hommey wrote:

Show 22 quoted lines

> On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 02:02:19PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 09:57:39PM +0300, Timo Hirvonen wrote:
> > > > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > So curl really must die. It may not matter for the expensive operations, 
> > > > > but a lot of scripting is about running all those "cheap" things that just 
> > > > > add up over time.
> > > > 
> > > > SELinux is the problem, not curl.
> > > 
> > > I think it's NSS, the problem, not SELinux. Linus's libcurl is built
> > > against NSS, which is the default on Fedora.
> > 
> > Well, it kind of doesn't matter. The fact is, libcurl is a bloated 
> > monster, and adds zero to 99% of what git people do.
> 
> Especially consideting the http transport fails to be useful in various
> scenarios.

I beg your pardon?  Maybe "s/useful/desirable/"?

In many scenarios, http transport is the _last resort_ against overzealous administrators. The fact that you might be lucky enough not to need that resort is a blessing, and does not give you the right to ridicule those who are unfortunate enough not to share your good luck.

Ciao, Dscho