Re: Performance issue of 'git branch'

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>]

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, david@lang.hm wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, david@lang.hm wrote:
> > > 
> > > what does the performance look like if you just do a static compile
> > > instead?
> > 
> > I don't even know - I don't have a static version of curl. I could install
> > one, of course, but since I don't think that's the solution anyway, I'm
> > not going to bother.
> 
> I wasn't thinking a static version of curl, I was thinking a static version of
> the git binaries. see how fast things could be if no startup linking was
> nessasary.

Well, that's what I meant. If I add '-static' to the link flags, I get

	/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lcurl
	collect2: ld returned 1 exit status

because I simply don't have a static library version of curl (and if I do 
NO_CURL, I fail the link due to not having a static version of zlib).

That's what I meant by "I could install a static version of curl" - I 
could install the debug libraries, but it just isn't a normal thing to do 
on any modern distribution. The right thing to do really would be to not 
have -lcurl for the main git binary at all.

Preferably done by having http walking handled by an external process (the 
way we already do rsync), but it's probably easier to just make all the 
clone/fetch/ls-remote things be a separate binary.

Of course, I'd personally solve the problem with NO_CURL=1, but that's 
probably not acceptable in general.

			Linus