From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [BUG] Performance regression due to #33d4221: write_sha1_file: freshen existing objects Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 16:28:23 -0400 Message-ID: <20150420202822.GA16367@peff.net> References: <20150417140315.GA13506@peff.net> <20150420195337.GA15447@peff.net> <20150420200956.GA16249@peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Stefan Saasen , Git Mailing List To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Apr 20 22:28:35 2015 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 1YkIJ1-0005fH-1T for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:28:35 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754072AbbDTU22 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Apr 2015 16:28:28 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:47819 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754011AbbDTU2Z (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Apr 2015 16:28:25 -0400 Received: (qmail 11347 invoked by uid 102); 20 Apr 2015 20:28:25 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 15:28:25 -0500 Received: (qmail 28286 invoked by uid 107); 20 Apr 2015 20:28:51 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 16:28:51 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 20 Apr 2015 16:28:23 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 01:12:54PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > Either way, though, I do not think it is the upstream Git project's > > problem. > > The commit to pick where to queue the fixes actually is my problem, > as I have this illusion that I'd be helping these derived works by > making it easier for them to merge, not cherry-pick. True, I had just meant the actual rolling of the releases. > But I would imagine that they may go the cherry-pick route anyway, > in which case I may be wasting my time worrying about them X-<. FWIW, I typically cherry-pick rather than merge. The resulting history is not as nice, but it means I don't have to think as hard about the history when doing so. It also means that topics may not be as well tested (e.g., they may have been implicitly relying on some other thing that happened upstream that I did _not_ cherry-pick). But we treat even cherry-picked upstream topics as their own feature branches, and do our normal internal testing and review. -Peff