Re: [PATCH 9/9] am: make a direct call to merge_recursive
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Jun 30, 2016, 08:38 UTC
- Message-ID
- <alpine.DEB.2.20.1606301026360.12947@virtualbox>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqpoqz51o8.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
Hi Junio,
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> writes: > > > From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> > > Did I write this thing?
Yes, you did. It was db05d6194d3f9ea9e64163944961d5f6e85302be as part of pu@{2016-06-15}.
> Having two sets of numbers that illustrated that this is not really > a useful optimization in the bigger picture looks vaguely familiar > (e.g. $gmane/279417), but the numbers are different.
I beg to differ. While the performance improvement is not huge, even your toy experiment shows it is significant, i.e. noticeable.
Show 12 quoted lines
> > It feels *slightly* wrong to submit your own patch to review, > > however, please keep in mind that > > > > 1) I changed the patch (o.gently does not exist anymore, so I do > > not set it), and > > > > 2) I added my own timings performed on Windows. > > It probably is much less confusing if you take the authorship, > possibly with a passing reference to whatever I wrote as the source > of inspiration in the log message, or something. I do not think I > deserve a credit in this 9-patch series.
The patch is an almost verbatim copy of db05d6194, I only removed the now-obsolete "gently" setting, is all.
That means that I feel really, really uneasy about claiming authorship because I did not write it.
If you really want me to, I will take custody of this patch and rewrite the commit message as well using --reset--author, of course.
Ciao, Dscho