From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optimized cvsexportcommit: calling 'cvs status' only once instead of once per changed file. Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 14:25:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <0056A63A-D511-4FDD-82A6-A13B06E237E9@zib.de> <4BA4CF7D-40CB-4A55-ADDC-56DE179FD6C1@zib.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Steffen Prohaska X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed May 09 14:25:52 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HllEn-0007Ae-VQ for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 09 May 2007 14:25:46 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756307AbXEIMZg (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 May 2007 08:25:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756385AbXEIMZg (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 May 2007 08:25:36 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:46122 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755763AbXEIMZc (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 May 2007 08:25:32 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 09 May 2007 12:25:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO [138.251.11.74]) [138.251.11.74] by mail.gmx.net (mp020) with SMTP; 09 May 2007 14:25:31 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18jL+02FqEjv85dhoG1kv5JDE/duJiuY9q+UlS4Zz 0PWWeEJjpR5Rx7 X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <4BA4CF7D-40CB-4A55-ADDC-56DE179FD6C1@zib.de> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Wed, 9 May 2007, Steffen Prohaska wrote: > On May 9, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > On Wed, 9 May 2007, Steffen Prohaska wrote: > > > > > The old implementation executed 'cvs status' for each file touched by > > > the patch to be applied. > > > > I did not follow development of that script closely, but could it be that > > this is a safety valve, to make it unlikely to commit something which was > > changed by somebody else in the meantime? > > Right. My patch doesn't change the functionality of the safety check. It's > just a magnitude faster if you commit a lot of files. I'm now able to apply a > patch that changes 900 files to a cvs working copy using ssh over DSL. I > wasn't before, at least not in reasonable time. What I was trying to get at: if you commit 900 files, and after the 450th file somebody _else_ commits a file, which just so happens to be one of your 450 remaining files, that safety check no longer holds. CVS is slow. Ciao, Dscho