RFC patch, 20 partscat-file: start using formatting logic from ref-filter

> I also have a question about site https://git-scm.com/docs/
> I thought it is updated automatically based on Documentation folder in
> the project, but it is not true. I edited docs for for-each-ref in
> December, I still see my patch in master, but for-each-ref docs in
> git-csm is outdated. Is it OK?

>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 10:58 AM Olga Telezhnaya
> <olyatelezhnaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I also have a question about site https://git-scm.com/docs/
> > I thought it is updated automatically based on Documentation folder in
> > the project, but it is not true. I edited docs for for-each-ref in
> > December, I still see my patch in master, but for-each-ref docs in
> > git-csm is outdated. Is it OK?
>
> If you look at https://git-scm.com/docs/git-for-each-ref, you'll find
> a pop-up control at the top of the page which allows you to select
> documentation for a particular release of Git (say, 2.19.1). Your
> change to git-for-each-ref.txt may be in "master" but is not yet in
> any official final release. It will be in 2.21.0, but that release is
> still in the RC stage, thus doesn't appear at
> https://git-scm.com/docs/git-for-each-ref.

> If serious:
> In this patch we remove cat-file formatting logic and reuse ref-filter
> logic there. As a positive side effect, cat-file now has many new
> formatting tokens (all from ref-filter formatting), including deref
> (like %(*objectsize:disk)). I have already tried to do this task one
> year ago, and it was bad attempt. I feel that today's patch is much
> better.

> I also have a question about site https://git-scm.com/docs/
> I thought it is updated automatically based on Documentation folder in
> the project, but it is not true. I edited docs for for-each-ref in
> December, I still see my patch in master, but for-each-ref docs in
> git-csm is outdated. Is it OK?

>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 06:50:06PM +0300, Olga Telezhnaya wrote:
>
> > It was a long way for me, I got older (by 1 year) and smarter
> > (hopefully), and maybe I will finish my Outreachy Internship task for
> > now. (I am doing it just for one year and a half, that's OK)
>
> Welcome back!
>
> Sorry to be a bit slow on the review. I've read through and commented on
> patch 10. Some of my comments were "I'll have to see how this plays out
> later in the series", so you may want to hold off on responding until I
> read the rest. :)
>
> > If serious:
> > In this patch we remove cat-file formatting logic and reuse ref-filter
> > logic there. As a positive side effect, cat-file now has many new
> > formatting tokens (all from ref-filter formatting), including deref
> > (like %(*objectsize:disk)). I have already tried to do this task one
> > year ago, and it was bad attempt. I feel that today's patch is much
> > better.
>
> I'm still concerned that this is going to regress the performance of
> cat-file noticeably without some big cleanups in ref-filter. Here are
> timings on linux.git before and after your patches:
>
>   [before]
>   $ time git cat-file --unordered --batch-all-objects --batch-check >/dev/null
>   real  0m16.602s
>   user  0m15.545s
>   sys   0m0.495s
>
>   [after]
>   $ time git cat-file --unordered --batch-all-objects --batch-check >/dev/null
>   real  0m27.301s
>   user  0m24.549s
>   sys   0m2.752s
>
> I don't think that's anything particularly wrong with your patches. It's
> the existing strategy of ref-filter (in particular how it is very eager
> to allocate lots of separate strings). And it may be too early to switch
> cat-file over to it.

>
> > I also have a question about site https://git-scm.com/docs/
> > I thought it is updated automatically based on Documentation folder in
> > the project, but it is not true. I edited docs for for-each-ref in
> > December, I still see my patch in master, but for-each-ref docs in
> > git-csm is outdated. Is it OK?
>
> Yeah, as Eric noted, we only build docs for the tagged releases. In
> theory it would be easy to just build the tip of master nightly, but the
> data model for the site would need quite a bit of adjustment.
>
> -Peff

>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 06:50:06PM +0300, Olga Telezhnaya wrote:
>
> > In my opinion, it still has some issues. I mentioned all of them in
> > TODOs in comments. All of them considered to be separate tasks for
> > other patches. Some of them sound easy and could be great tasks for
> > newbies.
>
> One other thing I forgot to mention: your patches ended up on the list
> in jumbled order. How do you send them? Usually `send-email` would add 1
> second to the timestamp of each, so that threading mail readers sort
> them as you'd expect (even if they arrive out of order due to the
> vagaries of SMTP servers).

> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 06:50:06PM +0300, Olga Telezhnaya wrote:
>
>> In my opinion, it still has some issues. I mentioned all of them in
>> TODOs in comments. All of them considered to be separate tasks for
>> other patches. Some of them sound easy and could be great tasks for
>> newbies.
>
> One other thing I forgot to mention: your patches ended up on the list
> in jumbled order. How do you send them? Usually `send-email` would add 1
> second to the timestamp of each, so that threading mail readers sort
> them as you'd expect (even if they arrive out of order due to the
> vagaries of SMTP servers).