From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: .git/info/refs Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:28:30 -0800 Message-ID: <7vireuaj9d.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <45B70D06.3050506@zytor.com> <45B7818F.6020805@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: "H. Peter Anvin" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jan 25 22:28:36 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HAC95-0001hi-QO for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:28:36 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030580AbXAYV2d (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:28:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030581AbXAYV2c (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:28:32 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtao12.cox.net ([68.230.241.27]:62870 "EHLO fed1rmmtao12.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030580AbXAYV2c (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:28:32 -0500 Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao12.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.03 201-2131-130-104-20060516) with ESMTP id <20070125212831.QPUM19398.fed1rmmtao12.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:28:31 -0500 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id FZTa1W00D1kojtg0000000; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:27:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: <45B7818F.6020805@zytor.com> (H. Peter Anvin's message of "Wed, 24 Jan 2007 07:55:59 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: "H. Peter Anvin" writes: > Jakub Narebski wrote: >> H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> >>> Would it be an incompatible change to add the commit date (and >>> perhaps the author date) to .git/info/refs? I believe that would >>> make it possible to dramatically (orders of magnitude) speed up the >>> generation of the gitweb index page, which is easily the most >>> expensive gitweb page to generate. >> >> With new gitweb and new git it is not that expensive. It is now one call >> to git-for-each-ref per repository. > > That IS hugely expensive. On kernel.org, that is 24175 calls to git. Do you mean you have 24k _REPOSITORIES_ served by gitweb on kernel.org?