From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Jackson Subject: Re: optimize gitdiff-do script Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 17:10:09 -0700 Organization: SGI Message-ID: <20050416171009.0bedbab4.pj@sgi.com> References: <20050416232749.23430.93360.sendpatchset@sam.engr.sgi.com> <20050416232810.23430.78712.sendpatchset@sam.engr.sgi.com> <20050416234344.GQ19099@pasky.ji.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Apr 17 02:07:24 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DMxJo-000756-Es for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 02:07:20 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261212AbVDQALD (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Apr 2005 20:11:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261214AbVDQALD (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Apr 2005 20:11:03 -0400 Received: from omx2-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.171.19]:34521 "EHLO omx2.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261212AbVDQALB (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Apr 2005 20:11:01 -0400 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by omx2.sgi.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/linux-outbound_gateway-1.1) with ESMTP id j3H1oLus011728; Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:50:31 -0700 Received: from vpn2 (mtv-vpn-hw-pj-2.corp.sgi.com [134.15.25.219]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (SGI-8.12.5/8.12.5) with SMTP id j3H0ADlU15249110; Sat, 16 Apr 2005 17:10:13 -0700 (PDT) To: Petr Baudis In-Reply-To: <20050416234344.GQ19099@pasky.ji.cz> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.0 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Petr wrote: > Please don't reindent the scripts. It violates the current coding style > and the patch is unreviewable. Sorry - I had not realized that there was a style in this case. I am all in favor of such coding styles, and will gladly fit this one. Do you want the patch resent, or a patch to restore indent on top of this one? > the patch is unreviewable. The section that I indented the wrong way was such a total rewrite, that you aren't going to be able to review it line by line compared to the old anyway. So in this case, it wasn't that I was modifying and reindenting, rather that I was rewriting a page of code from scratch. But that's a nit. Honoring the coding style is necessary in any case. > The idea behind that was that diffing could take a significant portion > of disk space, Here I don't understand, or don't agree, not sure which. This won't eat more disk space, because the same tmp files are reused, over and over. Instead of unlinking them just before reopening them truncating (O_WRONLY|O_CREAT|O_TRUNC), I just reopen them truncating. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.650.933.1373, 1.925.600.0401