From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Funny: git -p submodule summary Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 04:33:07 -0500 Message-ID: <20090109093307.GA2039@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20090109083836.GB21389@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7veizc25e8.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jan 09 10:34:36 2009 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 1LLDlD-0005dO-Ny for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:34:36 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753884AbZAIJdM (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jan 2009 04:33:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753656AbZAIJdL (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jan 2009 04:33:11 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:57000 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753360AbZAIJdK (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jan 2009 04:33:10 -0500 Received: (qmail 17611 invoked by uid 107); 9 Jan 2009 09:33:42 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:33:42 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:33:07 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7veizc25e8.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 Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 01:30:23AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > This arrangement to have the third process could even open the possibility > of having it read from git and write to pager, and not launching the pager > if there is no interesting data from git to feed it with. > > I do not know if I like the performance implications associated with it, > though. Ugh. That has definitely been a requested feature, but the thought of essentially running "cat" in our pipeline strikes me as a bit kludgey. On the other hand, we are by definition going to the pager in that case, so in theory performance is less of a consideration. But see my other mail for why a third process is hard to always do on Windows. -Peff