From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: on when to checksum Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 16:07:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <200504202252.PAA16837@emf.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Apr 21 01:01:28 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DOOBw-00047W-Tq for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:01:09 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261830AbVDTXFW (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:05:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261835AbVDTXFW (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:05:22 -0400 Received: from fire.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:36564 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261830AbVDTXFP (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:05:15 -0400 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j3KN5Ds4014344 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Wed, 20 Apr 2005 16:05:13 -0700 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j3KN5CkY001832; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 16:05:13 -0700 To: Tom Lord In-Reply-To: <200504202252.PAA16837@emf.net> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.35__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.109 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Tom Lord wrote: > > How many times per day do you invoke `write-tree' and why? Every single commit does a write-tree, so when I merge with Andrew, it's usually a series of 100-250 of them in a row. (Actually, _usualyl_ it's smaller series, but it's the big series that can be painful enough to matter). > It takes a large multiple of `0.3s' to get me to take you seriously > on this point. The thing is, I don't "trickle" things in. That would be horribly inefficient for me. So I go over the patches, make a mbox, and do them all in one go. And then they need to happen _fast_. If it takes 20 minutes, I go away for coffee or something, and then if something didn't apply half-way through, I will have lost my "context". That's why I want things instant. Not because I have huge daily throughput issues, but I have huge _latency_ issues. I considered doing a "two-level" thing, where I first did the stuff in a light-weigth patch manager, and then batched things up in the background for the real thing. But the fact is, I don't think it's needed. Not the way git performs now. If I can apply a hundred patches in a minute or two, I have not "lost the context" if it turns out that there is some silly glitch with one of them. Linus