From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Catalin Marinas" Subject: Re: [StGIT PATCH] Don't use patches//current Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 21:51:19 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20070506150852.8985.98091.stgit@yoghurt> <20070515182549.GB17851@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> <20070516071130.GB7453@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> <20070516194002.GA17805@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> <20070516204029.GB17805@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> <20070517145724.GA905@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Karl_Hasselstr=F6m?=" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu May 17 22:51:28 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 1HomwY-0007j2-Q3 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 17 May 2007 22:51:27 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755450AbXEQUvX convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 May 2007 16:51:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755439AbXEQUvW (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 May 2007 16:51:22 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.174]:29402 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754329AbXEQUvV convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 May 2007 16:51:21 -0400 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 44so417307uga for ; Thu, 17 May 2007 13:51:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=XqxBVeWTWE/NjgRMvD60trkY/azU6C6B2rZ4l9SlxDVUQE2OjXc+uScHVZSWJ9eGKZDzVUNLdlLyujaFuL9jqKRj0ots82HZITKY5jSTbK7Ksut33Q5byHj8hJnro+4+uYYKMWT4y1BKcraQLuFQxpgn3qExlADOB3F3ghorNe0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=nFsiDOimAnThV48OfwkYhG4zkU/6VYt/BfSc7DUkZp34eXSU/Xza0YNZe8Gq9DAlShCuNloxHOcciiPQBcFHcEV3atgpKJ/DPS5Hnc4ttR707LiMnn2dwVkGhgY/Vzzy4Ic2JwFHKDU1wZkQMw7HKnKBXPe+bzBXY0K+B6AuG3c= Received: by 10.66.220.12 with SMTP id s12mr526702ugg.1179435080069; Thu, 17 May 2007 13:51:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.67.27.11 with HTTP; Thu, 17 May 2007 13:51:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20070517145724.GA905@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 17/05/07, Karl Hasselstr=F6m wrote: > The only possibility I can think of that might explain this is that > some of your unapplied patches are attached to a place in the commit > DAG that's far away from the branch head (e.g. you have rebased to > some entirely different place since you last had them applied), so > that "git-rev-list patch ^branch" outputs a large part of the commit > DAG. That's probably the case. I have patches that I haven't rebased for months but I keep them in case they might be needed in the future. That's the reason for the hide/unhide commands. Anyway, I'm not yet prepared to give up my current workflow. I haven't tried to understand your patch yet but the unapplied patches will never be in a linear DAG similar to the applied patches. Because of this, we need to keep their order in a file anyway and we might not need to run git-rev-list (BTW, how do you preserve the unapplied patches order with the DAG implementation?). > Could you put counters in unapplied_patches() and > sort_applied_patches() to see how many lines each of them reads from > git-rev-list? The expected number (if it had taken just a little time= , > like it did for me) is a small constant times the number of patches i= n > both cases. I'll do this tomorrow to confirm but that's probably the cause of the s= low-down. --=20 Catalin