From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
To: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Fredrik Kuivinen <freku045@student.liu.se>
Subject: Re: recur status on linux-2.6
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 01:27:55 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7virklp438.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20060819104630.GA5213@c165.ib.student.liu.se
Fredrik Kuivinen <freku045@student.liu.se> writes:
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 03:54:19PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I tested git-merge-recur vs. git-merge-recursive on the linux-2.6
>> repository last night. It contains 2298 two-head merges. _All_ of them
>> come out identically with -recur as compared to -recursive (looking at
>> the resulting index only).
>
> After the latest updates to git-merge-recur it passes all the tests I
> have too.
>
>> That was the good news. The bad news is: it _seems_, that -recur is only
>> about 6x faster than -recursive, not 10x, and this number becomes smaller,
>> the longer the merge takes. So I see a startup effect here, probably.
>
> That is a quite nice improvement anyway :)
Maybe we should welcome Linus back with a surprise change that
makes recur take over recursive ;-).
Well, maybe not *that* fast.
Here is what I have in mind.
* Not in too distant future, like this weekend, we would:
- remove "TEST" at toplevel;
- merge the C merge-recur work in "master".
At this stage, people still have to ask for "recur" by either
explicitly saying "-s recur" or by exporting the environment
variable GIT_USE_RECUR_FOR_RECURSIVE=YesPlease; git
developers are encouraged to use this while running tests and
production.
* Before stabilization for 1.4.3, we would:
- rename merge-recursive to merge-recursive-old and
merge-recur to merge-recursive.
- we remove GIT_USE_RECUR_FOR_RECURSIVE hack.
- we make --no-python in t/ directory no-op and only test C
recursive implementation by default.
After this, people who would want to keep using the original
recursive have to ask for it by "-s recursive-old".
* We release 1.4.3 with C recursive as the default merge
strategy.
I am not at this moment thinking about removing recursive in
Python altogether. We still have a few contrib scripts
(p4import and gitview) that are in Python, so doing that would
not remove our dependency on Python anyway.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-08-22 8:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-08-13 13:54 recur status on linux-2.6 Johannes Schindelin
2006-08-13 16:58 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-08-13 18:16 ` Johannes Schindelin
2006-08-13 19:44 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-08-13 20:43 ` Johannes Schindelin
2006-08-18 4:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-08-18 10:00 ` Johannes Schindelin
2006-08-19 10:46 ` Fredrik Kuivinen
2006-08-22 8:27 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2006-08-22 13:57 ` Johannes Schindelin
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=7virklp438.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net \
--to=junkio@cox.net \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=freku045@student.liu.se \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
/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).