Re: [RFC] rename detection: allow more renames

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Nov 30, 2015, 18:25 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqegf78hv5.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20151124233328.GA13872@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 19 quoted lines

> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 05:35:06PM +0100, Andreas Krey wrote:
>
>> The code talks about limiting the size
>> of the rename matrix, but as far as I
>> can see, the matrix itself never exists
>> as such, and the only thing that could
>> actually overflow is the computation
>> for the progress indication. This
>> can be fixed by reporting just the
>> destinations checked instead of the
>> combinations, since we only update
>> the progress once per destination
>> anyway.
>
> I didn't dig in the archive, but I think we discussed the "just show
> progress for destinations" before. The problem you run into is that the
> items aren't a good indication of the amount of work. You really are
> doing n*m work, so if you just count "m", it can be very misleading if
> "n" is high (and vice versa).

Right.

With s/never exists/no longer exists/ in the above observation, I agree that this topic is sensible that it revisits the stale comment from days back when we did use the matrix.