From: Dirk Gouders <dirk@gouders.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 06:30:14 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] MyFirstObjectWalk: fix description for counting omitted objects
Message-ID: <gho7b0tceh.fsf@gouders.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq1q7waghc.fsf@gitster.g>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Dirk Gouders <dirk@gouders.net> writes:
>
>> Oh yes, you are right (as far as I can say): I would change this to
>> something like:
>>
>> "Asking for this list of filtered objects may cause performance
>> implications, however, because in this case, despite filtering objects,
>> the possibly much larger set of all reachable objects must be processed
>> in order to populate that list."
>
> Better, but the verb "cause" applied to "performance implications"
> feels funny.  It may "have" implications.  Alternatively, it may
> "cause" degradations.  As implications can be both positive or
> negative, it would be better to say "cause performancedegradations"
> when you know if it is negative.

Thank you for the clarification with "implications"
I will fix it.

Dirk

>> (Later in the document, it is suggested to do timing with the two
>> versions, which kind of follows up on the performance impact that is
>> focused on, here.  So, this doesn't remain an unresolved detail.)
>
> Great.
>
> Thanks.