From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D5D3C433EF for ; Sun, 26 Dec 2021 17:19:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232950AbhLZRTL (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Dec 2021 12:19:11 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:56576 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232879AbhLZRTK (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Dec 2021 12:19:10 -0500 Received: from mail-ed1-x52e.google.com (mail-ed1-x52e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52e]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6ED4FC06173E for ; Sun, 26 Dec 2021 09:19:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ed1-x52e.google.com with SMTP id x15so53423438edv.1 for ; Sun, 26 Dec 2021 09:19:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:references:user-agent:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nnpBzWLbkh2nP+vv0zm+UHVpRvePX6G4XeEe7tJIPyw=; b=nbbVs1WssPtE3JE98367MhWBJIYIe2gEeels0gNbWrG5Et8kTBp241twxwqQFCqown 6lxdMAcuNkHN8NtmtGIV8GoyJu+5V1RAqZBsQwdb053O+SBP427oZXPmrPAHrzOjTrUV K3ld4OmUyxIR+aD+2JG1yfn9k2Pudp7cfYU8fmppOfwjTes+gW4ptfD7Acg1KTb9MQo9 E7JX9djNMTEjMi0s0+iR5+nLgeVadb7JKUvmOExyuUc2t5WgC2zBSZt5WNmcwR5DH8SO S1lu+/NsH23Aontl+JtUCkSOQiE5Q/US8L8LF8gJJF3GZlPpy5MbBSbv5qYT0cF1UtLW Vmkg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:references:user-agent :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nnpBzWLbkh2nP+vv0zm+UHVpRvePX6G4XeEe7tJIPyw=; b=y/PaBMaifNhEDFt1pKT4ZxNodBYK+yr4gMKtzvAYom4ux0AR3vOTcGpmiF+G6tjWqu sRaDcO1P4ox4zW5opcbu3oW0v+IfMkzkHIoDmyXDCuathst7FH0L8o04Cg7IKxe6hf8Q S8MLY2CZy5sMe2qUz/HktLs+yUBuYpMf8qN+UWkRdAeEAkB3WaYwA4HgE5rupR+PTal0 eqNBIb9mZdvrfh3bAmTbrPjSc6RARRhNvxG+U9ASPR/EJ/n8mUXTyhduMB68Wt1nO4Zu nyWVV9N9O4p0jMdwkmugCN08pBDPow8Rrac8WCHFtu18gu6L+fIzFo4wg5jTlXTaqNwA LqUg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530R03MQUKzkbTZk/HPl1QxtnRSaFwkGgY29xcDa8CGRoBoVrPec +87Lbuwcdq+eAOieGvo+SuY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwgv8SpGt3A6hjNg2wNW7sHUof5Fh6pqa82HRyg76Io8voo7EJnZzLe3QLztl6YwRF+tK8LkQ== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:de0f:: with SMTP id h15mr13077552edv.40.1640539148443; Sun, 26 Dec 2021 09:19:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from gmgdl (157-157-127-103.dsl.dynamic.simnet.is. [157.157.127.103]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id dd5sm4431520ejc.59.2021.12.26.09.19.07 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 26 Dec 2021 09:19:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from avar by gmgdl with local (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from ) id 1n1XAp-0009Id-41; Sun, 26 Dec 2021 18:19:07 +0100 From: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason To: Teng Long Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2021, #05; Thu, 23) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2021 18:15:53 +0100 References: User-agent: Debian GNU/Linux bookworm/sid; Emacs 27.1; mu4e 1.6.10 In-reply-to: Message-ID: <211226.8635mfgu7o.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Dec 25 2021, Teng Long wrote: > On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 15:42:33 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > "git ls-tree" learns "--oid-only" option, similar to "--name-only". > > > > Will merge to 'next'? > > source: > > Currently, the "source" is patch v6, and there are some test problems in > [1]. They're not very hard to fix, but I'm considering whether to: > > WAY-1: continue on the current implementation path; > > WAY-2: Combine (steal :) the RFC patch from =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r= =C3=B0 Bjarmason > and some commits of mine, to the next patch, because some arguments > given from =C3=86var are compelling (of course the test problems wil= l be > fixed too). > > So, I will work on it, I think I will send a new patch based on WAY1 > quickly, and send a further RFC patch on WAY2. If both are ok, let the > community decide which one to use. > > Thanks. Yes there's the test problem I mentioned in [1], but in addition to that your current set of patches have around a ~10% performance regression, as noted in [2]. My RFC series[2] side-steps that by leaving the current code in-place, and only introducing a new optional --format path for new output formats. I really don't mind if you go for "WAY-1" first over my RFC --format "WAY-2", but I do think any such change should be prominently noting/selling that this new feature is worth the performance regression, or finding some alternate "WAY-1+" to avoid it. 1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/211217.86o85f8jey.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com/ 2. https://lore.kernel.org/git/RFC-cover-0.7-00000000000-20211217T131635Z-a= varab@gmail.com/