From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: git status: small difference between stating whole repository and small subdirectory Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:41:40 -0500 Message-ID: <20120220224140.GA7116@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20120217222912.GC31830@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20120220140653.GC5131@sigill.intra.peff.net> <87ty2l38ay.fsf@thomas.inf.ethz.ch> <20120220143644.GA13938@do> <20120220143952.GA8387@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20120220151134.GA13135@sigill.intra.peff.net> <87d3991gyg.fsf@thomas.inf.ethz.ch> <20120220203540.GA5966@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v1uppkvpx.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Thomas Rast , Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy , Piotr Krukowiecki , Git Mailing List To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 20 23:41:49 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RzbvZ-0007lP-3p for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:41:49 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754678Ab2BTWlo (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:41:44 -0500 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:44258 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754632Ab2BTWln (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:41:43 -0500 Received: (qmail 8129 invoked by uid 107); 20 Feb 2012 22:41:43 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:41:43 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:41:40 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7v1uppkvpx.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 02:04:26PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > ... Things may have changed since then, of course, but I at > > least know that they were sufficient in 34110cd^. > > Looking at where cache_tree_free() is called, I think back then the > two-way merge was deemed OK, but we did not trust three-way merge or > merge-recursive at all. Thanks, I'll take a look more closely at those cases. > It is OK to check that we do not over-invalidate for performance, but it > is a lot more important to make sure we do not under-invalidate for > correctness. I am a bit worried that you seem to be putting more stress > on the former. I think it is just selection bias of the specific parts of his tests that I was responding to. I completely agree that correctness is way more important, and I'm also trying to come up with tests to validate correctness. I just wasn't talking about them there. I still think replaying real-world test cases is going to be more likely to find issues in invalidation. I can come up with lots of simple test-cases, but they're not likely to find anything we wouldn't find in the code with trivial inspection. I think a combination of careful analysis and real-world validation is going to be more helpful in the long run than the kind of simplistic tests that are in t0090. -Peff