From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kristian =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=F8gsberg?= Subject: Re: [RFC] Build in clone Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:53:35 -0500 Message-ID: <1204052015.11329.5.camel@gaara.boston.redhat.com> References: <200802260321.14038.johan@herland.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Johan Herland , git@vger.kernel.org, Santi =?ISO-8859-1?Q?B=E9jar?= To: Daniel Barkalow X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 26 19:55:06 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JU4wf-00047E-Cn for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:54:29 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763564AbYBZSxx (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:53:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1763551AbYBZSxw (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:53:52 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:52832 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1763482AbYBZSxv (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:53:51 -0500 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1QIrfcU002342; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:53:41 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.20]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m1QIrffO012322; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:53:41 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.104] (dhcp83-9.boston.redhat.com [172.16.83.9]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m1QIreQP032010; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:53:40 -0500 In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Evolution 2.21.91 (2.21.91-2.fc9) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.58 on 172.16.52.254 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 12:36 -0500, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Johan Herland wrote: > > > Other than the failing tests, it seems to work fairly well. I've been > > playing around with it for a few minutes, and on a test repo I have with > > 1001 branches and 10000 tags, it cuts down the runtime of a local git-clone > > from 25 seconds to ~1.5 seconds. (simply by eliminating the overhead of > > invoking git-update-ref for every single ref) :) > > Good to hear. A certain amount of the point is performance, and I've only > got relatively simple repositories on Linux to test with, where everything > is too fast to tell anyway. Yeah, that's pretty cool. > > - Fix "clone from $repo" reflog messages (using strbufs; something tells > > me more of this code would benefit from using strbufs) > > Most likely. I think Kristian wrote most of this before strbuf existed or > something of the sort. No this was after the strbuf API went in. The "clone from $repo" messages I just left at the time because I was lazy, but yeah, they'll need some strbuf love, or maybe just snprintf. I don't agree that strbuf applies very well for the rest of the code. I'm a big fan of the strbuf functionality, but I've been very deliberate about using and not using it. cheers, Kristian