git.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Robin Rosenberg <robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com>
To: Steffen Prohaska <prohaska@zib.de>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optimized cvsexportcommit: calling 'cvs status' only once instead of once per changed file.
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 22:30:15 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200705092230.16027.robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0056A63A-D511-4FDD-82A6-A13B06E237E9@zib.de>

onsdag 09 maj 2007 skrev Steffen Prohaska:
> The old implementation executed 'cvs status' for each file touched by  
> the patch
> to be applied. The new code calls 'cvs status' only once and parses  
> cvs's
> output to collect status information of all files contained in the  
> cvs working
> copy.
> 
> Runtime is now independent of the number of modified files. A  
> drawback is that
> the new code retrieves status information for all files even if only  
> a few are
> touched. The old implementation may be noticeably faster for small  
> patches to

Ouch, lets see now. My working cvs checkout contains ~25k files and
my typical commit touches 5-20 files. 

A quick (well....) test says cvs status on my checkout takes about
five minutes to execute. Compare this with my typical exportcommit
time of about ten seconds. 

If you really need this, make a switch to select it.

Still we're missing a check for the case that new files/directories have been
added on the server, but are missing from the checkout, or why not run
an update first. If you are commit this number of large files you'll need that
check, or it's hurt a lot when things fail.

> large workingcopies. However, the old implementation doesn't scale if  
> more
> files are touched, especially in remotely located cvs repositories.

How come your commit are so large you'd prefer this behaviour?

-- robin

  parent reply	other threads:[~2007-05-09 20:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-05-08 23:59 [PATCH] Optimized cvsexportcommit: calling 'cvs status' only once instead of once per changed file Steffen Prohaska
2007-05-09  7:42 ` Steffen Prohaska
2007-05-09  7:45   ` [PATCH (corrected)] " Steffen Prohaska
2007-05-09 11:04 ` [PATCH] " Johannes Schindelin
2007-05-09 11:43   ` Steffen Prohaska
2007-05-09 12:25     ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-05-09 13:00       ` Steffen Prohaska
2007-05-09 20:30 ` Robin Rosenberg [this message]
2007-05-09 22:45   ` Steffen Prohaska
2007-05-09 23:06     ` [PATCH] Optimized cvsexportcommit: calling 'cvs status' once instead of once per touched file Steffen Prohaska
2007-05-10  6:53     ` [PATCH] Optimized cvsexportcommit: calling 'cvs status' only once instead of once per changed file Martin Langhoff
2007-05-10  7:08       ` Junio C Hamano
2007-05-13 21:01         ` RFH for " Junio C Hamano
2007-05-13 21:51           ` Robin Rosenberg
2007-05-14  6:40             ` Martin Langhoff

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200705092230.16027.robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com \
    --to=robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=prohaska@zib.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).