Re: [PATCH 3/4] Make git-fetch follow tags we already have objects for sooner

From: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
Date: Mar 1, 2008, 16:33 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.1.00.0803011127490.19665@iabervon.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080301042510.GW8410@spearce.org>

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:

Show 20 quoted lines

> Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:
> > 
> > > Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > > This is cute.  Obviously some tests need to be adjusted for this
> > > > change, though.
> > > 
> > > I'll take a look at the current tests this weekend and see what
> > > needs to be adjusted, if anything.  I'd also like to get a few
> > > tests written for this, so we are certain the optimizations are
> > > kicking in when they are supposed to be.
> > 
> > I'd be really grateful if you came up with a good general strategy for 
> > testing that we're not doing too much work in fetching, because clone has 
> > optimizations that I need to test in a similar way, and I haven't been 
> > able to think of anything not horribly intrusive.
> 
> Is this "horribly intrusive" ?
> 
> We can test it with something like this:

That looks suitable to me (although maybe the environment variable should contain the fd to write to?). I also want to know the "have" info, so I can verify that the client is listing things appropriately, but that's an obvious addition.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*