From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] don't mention index refreshing side effect in git-status docs Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 03:42:17 -0500 Message-ID: <20071209084217.GA2377@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20071209082133.GA2257@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vhciss1ww.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Steven Grimm , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Dec 09 09:42:41 2007 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 1J1HkH-00081K-BZ for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 09:42:41 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751408AbXLIImU (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Dec 2007 03:42:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751410AbXLIImU (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Dec 2007 03:42:20 -0500 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:2078 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750884AbXLIImU (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Dec 2007 03:42:20 -0500 Received: (qmail 23891 invoked by uid 111); 9 Dec 2007 08:42:19 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with SMTP; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 03:42:19 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 09 Dec 2007 03:42:17 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vhciss1ww.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 12:33:19AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > If there is some desire to document the side effect, I think we should > > at least remove the mention of speeding up git-diff (which is just wrong > > now). > > Why is it "just wrong"? Having to squelch the false hits and to run > auto-refresh are both unnecessary overhead if your index is fresh. I mean that this is not a useful technique for speeding up git-diff anymore (assuming you have not tinkered with autorefreshindex, in which case I assume you know what you are doing and don't need this tip). Did you think I meant "there is no speedup with autorefreshindex off", or are you arguing that even with the new diff behavior there is still a speedup in "git status; git diff" over just "git status"? -Peff