From: Martin Fick <mfick@codeaurora.org>
To: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 66 patches and counting
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 16:16:39 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201110061616.39381.mfick@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4E8CCC55.9070408@alum.mit.edu>
On Wednesday, October 05, 2011 03:29:57 pm Michael Haggerty
wrote:
> My renovation of refs.c [1] is currently at 66 patches
> and counting. What can I say?: (1) I like to make
> changes in the smallest irreducible steps and (2) there
> is a lot that needed to be done in refs.c.
>
> When I'm done, is it OK to dump a patch series like that
> on the git mailing list? Is it pointless because nobody
> will review them anyway? Is a big pile of changes like
> this welcome in any form? Would it be better to convey
> the changes via git itself (e.g., github) rather than
> via emails?
>
> Michael
>
> [1] hierarchical-refs at git://github.com/mhagger/git.git
Michael,
I downloaded your patch series and tested it on my repos.
Here are some of the timings I saw with your branch as is:
* git clone 2:50m (same)
* full fetch changes (> 1 hour) (bad!)
* git branch (unpacked, ungced) .7s (good!)
* git branch (packed, gced) .18s (~>same)
* git checkout (unpacked, ungced) 10.5s (~>same)
* git checkout (packed, gced) 9.5 (~>same)
* noop fetch changes (unpacked, ungced) 14s (~>same)
* noop fetch changes (packed, gced) 12s (same)
For the full fetch, I estimated, things were scrolling by
slow enough that after about 15 min I interrupted it. I
suspect it might be at least 6 times longer (if rate stayed
the same).
Here are the best timings for all the good patches that
others have submitted to fix many of the previous problems I
brought up:
* git clone 2:50m
* full fetch changes 4:50m
* git branch (unpacked, ungced) 9s
* git branch (packed, gced) .05s
* git checkout (unpacked, ungced) 9s
* git checkout (packed, gced) 8s
* noop fetch changes (unpacked, ungced) 12s
* noop fetch changes (packed, gced) 12s
(my internal patches bring full fetch down to 2:50m)
It would be nice if you could rebase your work on top of
some of the other patches also so that I could see those
results. I might give that a try if I have the time and it
is easy (or I might rebase those patches on yours).
Thanks,
-Martin
--
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. which is a
member of Code Aurora Forum
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-06 22:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-10-05 21:29 66 patches and counting Michael Haggerty
2011-10-05 21:36 ` Junio C Hamano
2011-10-05 21:55 ` Jonathan Nieder
2011-10-06 22:16 ` Martin Fick [this message]
2011-10-07 1:59 ` Martin Fick
2011-10-07 3:14 ` Michael Haggerty
2011-10-07 15:51 ` Scalable reference handling Michael Haggerty
2011-10-07 18:51 ` Martin Fick
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=201110061616.39381.mfick@codeaurora.org \
--to=mfick@codeaurora.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhagger@alum.mit.edu \
/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).