From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] parse_object: try internal cache before reading object db Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:45:15 -0800 Message-ID: <7vmxa0ih6s.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20120105210001.GA30549@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vipkpn87d.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120106191654.GA11022@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v8vlkjzcj.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120106223324.GB13106@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, git-dev@github.com To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jan 06 23:45:25 2012 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 1RjIXN-0003Qe-7j for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 23:45:25 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759000Ab2AFWpU (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jan 2012 17:45:20 -0500 Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.35]:55401 "EHLO smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752940Ab2AFWpS (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jan 2012 17:45:18 -0500 Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C87EC6139; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 17:45:17 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=cO/pqZxKpnN5fjIm/m90GPi6/YY=; b=FZR7zP kd8y5FvgsZtXITU/pYhFuhFG1/p6apDRABeN03/kajNspcQPM9J5/QnJDn6yy2xg ZVSTD/pyK8v2l3NslTAYIOJaPE0kXSb/QRrJfuCcdQBn9YY20OKcrUrUxdloManS kurD/xH6YUyo1/nUASgudj2PTSaT+5JNo1v50= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=mwbuqdd5+hujSwAG5HzayqVl+3CMtkAG nGnMgkDtHsoY/DX86Et//hxKbaXVRRCDOx0F5tg74Ko9nQ1r9imbK+9nKjUru+OS qH4y1nyd0tMhxRrLbh2VBzjSBcqocXgPWZrhRAgvgLblqqRD7bRmg9h7YkH+xUMs 73tFYp29TBI= Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C02B66137; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 17:45:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [76.102.170.102]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 28EAE6136; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 17:45:17 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20120106223324.GB13106@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Fri, 6 Jan 2012 17:33:24 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 1AC07F68-38B8-11E1-A992-9DB42E706CDE-77302942!b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King writes: >> Even though it is a bit scary kind of loosening of sanity checks that I >> hesitate to take at this late in the cycle, I think it makes sense. Let's >> queue them on 'pu' and aim for the next cycle. > > Did you want to leave the parse_object optimization until next cycle, > too? It's not loosening checks, but it's such a core piece of code that > it makes me nervous somebody somewhere is abusing "struct object" in a > way that will break it. I was just updating the "What's cooking" report and my current thinking is that we should keep all three in "next" to give it a bit of exposure for now, and merge them to "master" early in the 1.7.10 cycle.