From: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
To: git@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>,
Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix simple deepening of a repo
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:20:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200908241620.52838.johan@herland.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0908240946390.6044@xanadu.home>
On Monday 24 August 2009, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> writes:
> > > If all refs sent by the remote repo during a fetch are reachable
> > > locally, then no further conversation is performed with the
> > > remote. This check is skipped when the --depth argument is
> > > provided to allow the deepening of a shallow clone which
> > > corresponding remote repo has no changed.
> > >
> > > However, some additional filtering was added in commit c29727d5
> > > to remove those refs which are equal on both sides. If the
> > > remote repo has not changed, then the list of refs to give the
> > > remote process becomes empty and simply attempting to deepen a
> > > shallow repo always fails.
> > >
> > > Let's stop being smart in that case and simply send the whole
> > > list over when that condition is met. The remote will do the
> > > right thing anyways.
> > >
> > > Test cases for this issue are also provided.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
> > > ---
> >
> > Thanks. The fix looks correct (as usual with patches from you).
> >
> > But it makes me wonder if this logic to filter refs is buying us
> > anything.
> >
> > > for (rm = refs; rm; rm = rm->next) {
> > > + nr_refs++;
> > > if (rm->peer_ref &&
> > > !hashcmp(rm->peer_ref->old_sha1, rm->old_sha1))
> > > continue;
> >
> > ALLOC_GROW(heads, nr_heads + 1, nr_alloc);
> > heads[nr_heads++] = rm;
> > }
> >
> > What is the point of not asking for the refs that we know are the
> > same?
>
> I could see the advantage if the number of refs is really huge.
> Wasn't some converted repositories producing a lot of branches and/or
> tags significantly slowing down a fetch operation? Granted that was
> long ago when that issue got "fixed" so the details are fuzzy to me.
I'm converting several CVS repos to Git with ~50 000 refs, so I'm happy
with any change that can speed things up for repos with many refs.
Right now, my biggest gripe is that a 'git push --mirror' on such a repo
can easily take ~10 min. even though the actual pack generation and
transfer only takes a couple of seconds. It seems like it needs ~10
minutes to generate the list of changed/added/deleted refs...
Unfortunately I haven't had time to look properly into it, yet...
...Johan
--
Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net>
www.herland.net
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-24 14:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-22 5:52 git fetch --depth=* broken? Nicolas Pitre
2009-08-24 4:04 ` [PATCH] fix simple deepening of a repo Nicolas Pitre
2009-08-24 4:49 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-08-24 13:55 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-08-24 14:20 ` Johan Herland [this message]
2009-08-24 22:21 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-08-24 16:26 ` Daniel Barkalow
2009-08-24 22:30 ` Julian Phillips
2009-08-25 0:18 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-08-25 2:12 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-08-25 5:00 ` Sverre Rabbelier
2009-08-25 5:21 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-08-25 6:12 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-08-25 6:33 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-08-25 15:14 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-08-26 2:10 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-08-26 7:08 ` Johannes Sixt
2009-08-26 8:22 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-08-26 9:03 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-08-26 17:03 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-08-28 17:30 ` [RFC PATCH] upload-pack: expand capability advertises additional refs Shawn O. Pearce
2009-08-28 19:07 ` Junio C Hamano
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=200908241620.52838.johan@herland.net \
--to=johan@herland.net \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=barkalow@iabervon.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=nico@cam.org \
/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).