From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [RFC] origin link for cherry-pick and revert Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:55:18 -0400 Message-ID: <20080910225518.GA24534@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20080909132212.GA25476@cuci.nl> <20080909211355.GB10544@machine.or.cz> <20080909225603.GA7459@cuci.nl> <20080910122118.GI21071@mit.edu> <20080910141630.GB7397@cuci.nl> <20080910151015.GA8869@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20080910215045.GA22739@cuci.nl> <20080910215410.GA24432@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20080910223427.GB22739@cuci.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Theodore Tso , Petr Baudis , git@vger.kernel.org To: "Stephen R. van den Berg" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Sep 11 00:56:30 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 1KdYbt-0002Hj-Rv for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:56:30 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751521AbYIJWzV (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:55:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751821AbYIJWzV (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:55:21 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:1066 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751521AbYIJWzV (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:55:21 -0400 Received: (qmail 3024 invoked by uid 111); 10 Sep 2008 22:55:19 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with SMTP; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:55:19 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:55:18 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080910223427.GB22739@cuci.nl> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 12:34:27AM +0200, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote: > I see. Indeed. That's a lot better. > Did the binary search inside tree objects ever get implemented? I believe it's still linear (and skimming tree-walk.c:find_tree_entry seems to confirm). However, one advantage of such an approach is that it will improve as tree lookup improves (e.g., I believe the pack v4 work included improvements in this area). > The downsides when doing that are: > - The lookup cost is small, but still noticable, since it is sometimes > done on every commit; using the in-commit origin headerfield solves > this at negligible cost. > - The origin information is no longer cryptographically protected (under > certain circumstances this could be considered an advantage and a > disadvantage at the same time). Yes, those are inherent in the scheme, as is the upside that one can make and distribute such annotations separately from commit creation. I haven't thought enough about it to decide whether there is a scenario where making such a "cherry-picked from" annotation might make use of that property. -Peff