Re: Performance issue of 'git branch'

> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, david@lang.hm wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, david@lang.hm wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > what does the performance look like if you just do a static compile
> > > > instead?
> > > 
> > > I don't even know - I don't have a static version of curl. I could install
> > > one, of course, but since I don't think that's the solution anyway, I'm
> > > not going to bother.
> > 
> > I wasn't thinking a static version of curl, I was thinking a static version of
> > the git binaries. see how fast things could be if no startup linking was
> > nessasary.
> 
> Well, that's what I meant. If I add '-static' to the link flags, I get
> 
> 	/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lcurl
> 	collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
> 
> because I simply don't have a static library version of curl (and if I do 
> NO_CURL, I fail the link due to not having a static version of zlib).
> 
> That's what I meant by "I could install a static version of curl" - I 
> could install the debug libraries, but it just isn't a normal thing to do 
> on any modern distribution. The right thing to do really would be to not 
> have -lcurl for the main git binary at all.
> 
> Preferably done by having http walking handled by an external process (the 
> way we already do rsync), but it's probably easier to just make all the 
> clone/fetch/ls-remote things be a separate binary.