From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Fick Subject: Re: 66 patches and counting Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 16:16:39 -0600 Organization: CAF Message-ID: <201110061616.39381.mfick@codeaurora.org> References: <4E8CCC55.9070408@alum.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Haggerty X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Oct 07 00:16:48 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RBwFD-0003pP-Sw for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Oct 2011 00:16:48 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965277Ab1JFWQm (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Oct 2011 18:16:42 -0400 Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.251]:42894 "EHLO wolverine02.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935887Ab1JFWQl (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Oct 2011 18:16:41 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6491"; a="125304834" Received: from pdmz-ns-mip.qualcomm.com (HELO mostmsg01.qualcomm.com) ([199.106.114.10]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 06 Oct 2011 15:16:41 -0700 Received: from mfick-lnx.localnet (pdmz-snip-v218.qualcomm.com [192.168.218.1]) by mostmsg01.qualcomm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 017F010004C2; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 15:16:41 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.32-28-generic; KDE/4.4.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <4E8CCC55.9070408@alum.mit.edu> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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