From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC v3 0/4] Improving performance of git clean Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 17:24:27 -0400 Message-ID: <20150421212427.GB13230@peff.net> References: <1429389672-30209-1-git-send-email-erik.elfstrom@gmail.com> <20150420221414.GA13813@hank> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Thomas Gummerer , Git List To: erik =?utf-8?B?ZWxmc3Ryw7Zt?= X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Apr 21 23:24:36 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ykfel-0002mF-5W for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 23:24:35 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932620AbbDUVYa convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 17:24:30 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:48289 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932539AbbDUVYa (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 17:24:30 -0400 Received: (qmail 5176 invoked by uid 102); 21 Apr 2015 21:24:30 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:24:30 -0500 Received: (qmail 4803 invoked by uid 107); 21 Apr 2015 21:24:56 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 17:24:56 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 17:24:27 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 08:21:37PM +0200, erik elfstr=C3=B6m wrote: > Ok, thanks for looking into this. >=20 > I have no well founded opinions on the implementation but I do > think the performance tests would be more meaningful if the > setup/cleanup code could be removed from the timed section. > If the community agrees on an implementation I would be happy > to convert the new tests, either directly in this series or as a foll= ow > up if that is preferred. If I understand correctly, the reason that you need per-run setup is that your "git clean" command actually cleans things, and you need to restore the original state for each time-trial. Can you instead use "gi= t clean -n" to do a dry-run? I think what you are timing is really the "figure out what to clean" step, and not the cleaning itself. -Peff