* t1001-read-tree-m-2way.sh failed
From: Sven Verdoolaege @ 2006-04-20 13:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
*** t1001-read-tree-m-2way.sh ***
* FAIL 1: setup
echo frotz >frotz &&
echo nitfol >nitfol &&
cat bozbar-old >bozbar &&
echo rezrov >rezrov &&
echo yomin >yomin &&
git-update-index --add nitfol bozbar rezrov &&
treeH=`git-write-tree` &&
echo treeH $treeH &&
git-ls-tree $treeH &&
cat bozbar-new >bozbar &&
git-update-index --add frotz bozbar --force-remove rezrov &&
git-ls-files --stage >M.out &&
treeM=`git-write-tree` &&
echo treeM $treeM &&
git-ls-tree $treeM &&
git-diff-tree $treeH $treeM
* ok 2: 1, 2, 3 - no carry forward
* ok 3: 4 - carry forward local addition.
* ok 4: 5 - carry forward local addition.
* ok 5: 6 - local addition already has the same.
* ok 6: 7 - local addition already has the same.
* ok 7: 8 - conflicting addition.
* ok 8: 9 - conflicting addition.
* ok 9: 10 - path removed.
* ok 10: 11 - dirty path removed.
* ok 11: 12 - unmatching local changes being removed.
* ok 12: 13 - unmatching local changes being removed.
* ok 13: 14 - unchanged in two heads.
* ok 14: 15 - unchanged in two heads.
* ok 15: 16 - conflicting local change.
* ok 16: 17 - conflicting local change.
* ok 17: 18 - local change already having a good result.
* ok 18: 19 - local change already having a good result, further modified.
* ok 19: 20 - no local change, use new tree.
* ok 20: 21 - no local change, dirty cache.
* ok 21: 22 - local change cache updated.
* ok 22: DF vs DF/DF case setup.
* ok 23: DF vs DF/DF case test.
* failed 1 among 23 test(s)
skimo
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: t1001-read-tree-m-2way.sh failed
From: Andreas Ericsson @ 2006-04-20 13:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: skimo; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <20060420130121.GO11428MdfPADPa@greensroom.kotnet.org>
Platform?
Architecture?
git version?
Keyboard color?
This report is missing lots of info. Fill in the missing parts and
someone will almost certainly be able to help you.
Sven Verdoolaege wrote:
> *** t1001-read-tree-m-2way.sh ***
> * FAIL 1: setup
> echo frotz >frotz &&
> echo nitfol >nitfol &&
> cat bozbar-old >bozbar &&
> echo rezrov >rezrov &&
> echo yomin >yomin &&
> git-update-index --add nitfol bozbar rezrov &&
> treeH=`git-write-tree` &&
> echo treeH $treeH &&
> git-ls-tree $treeH &&
>
> cat bozbar-new >bozbar &&
> git-update-index --add frotz bozbar --force-remove rezrov &&
> git-ls-files --stage >M.out &&
> treeM=`git-write-tree` &&
> echo treeM $treeM &&
> git-ls-tree $treeM &&
> git-diff-tree $treeH $treeM
> * failed 1 among 23 test(s)
>
--
Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231
^ permalink raw reply
* 1.3.0 creating bigger packs than 1.2.3
From: Shawn Pearce @ 2006-04-20 13:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Apparently I have created a repository which v1.2.3 packs about 50%
smaller than 'next' does:
v1.2.3 (tag):
60M pack-7f766f5af5547554bacb28c0294bd562589dc5e7.pack
1.2.3.gf3a4 (an older 'next'):
128M pack-7f766f5af5547554bacb28c0294bd562589dc5e7.pack
1.3.0.rc4.g8060 (a fairly recent 'next'):
118M pack-7f766f5af5547554bacb28c0294bd562589dc5e7.pack
Repeated packing with 1.3.0.rc4.g8060 doesn't seem to change the
size of the pack file, its pretty consistent at 118M.
Given that disk is pretty cheap these days I'm not concerned about
the 2x increase but thought I'd let folks know that the packing
improvements in 1.3.0 seem to have taken a small step backwards
with regards to this particular dataset.
I can make the repository available if somebody wants to look at it.
--
Shawn.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: t1001-read-tree-m-2way.sh failed
From: Sven Verdoolaege @ 2006-04-20 13:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andreas Ericsson; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <4447882F.8080304@op5.se>
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 03:10:07PM +0200, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> Keyboard color?
I think "beige" comes closest.
In any case, it turns out that apparently make was confused
by the rename from diff.c to diff-lib.c.
After a make clean, everything was ok.
skimo
^ permalink raw reply
* Plain view on image in tree in gitweb results in binary output in browser
From: Pander @ 2006-04-20 13:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Hi all,
Plain and head view on an image in a tree in gitweb results in binary
output in browser. One gets numbered lines with exotic characters.
Is it suppose to be like this in gitweb would it be better to, according
to the mime type of the file, show the actual image in the plain or head
view?
Is this configurable or a feature request?
Regards,
Pander
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: 1.3.0 creating bigger packs than 1.2.3
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2006-04-20 14:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Shawn Pearce; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <20060420133640.GA31198@spearce.org>
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Shawn Pearce wrote:
> Apparently I have created a repository which v1.2.3 packs about 50%
> smaller than 'next' does:
>
> v1.2.3 (tag):
> 60M pack-7f766f5af5547554bacb28c0294bd562589dc5e7.pack
>
> 1.2.3.gf3a4 (an older 'next'):
> 128M pack-7f766f5af5547554bacb28c0294bd562589dc5e7.pack
>
> 1.3.0.rc4.g8060 (a fairly recent 'next'):
> 118M pack-7f766f5af5547554bacb28c0294bd562589dc5e7.pack
>
> Repeated packing with 1.3.0.rc4.g8060 doesn't seem to change the
> size of the pack file, its pretty consistent at 118M.
First try "git repack -a -d f", where the "-f" is the magic one.
Without the -f, git repack will re-use old pack information, which is much
much faster, but not as space-efficient.
If that doesn't help, it might be time to look at the actual repo, but try
that first.
Linus
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: GIT Error issue
From: Shyamal Sadanshio @ 2006-04-20 14:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin Langhoff; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <46a038f90604191453q567192b0l9a35d50f96f8705d@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks a lot for the pointer!
It worked now!!
Thanks and Regards,
Shyamal
On 4/20/06, Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you are using Debian or a derivative, just do
>
> apt-get install git-core
>
> which will remove the 'git' package (GNU Interactive Tools) and
> install the git SCM. On RPM systems, probably
>
> yum install git-core
>
> will do the trick.
>
> cheers,
>
>
> martin
>
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: GIT Error issue
From: Shyamal Sadanshio @ 2006-04-20 15:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Erik Mouw; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <20060419112135.GA24807@harddisk-recovery.com>
Hi,
Yes, I had installed a wrong GIT.
Thanks it worked now!
However, with a http protocol instead of git and rsync because of
firewall issue, I guess!
Thanks and Regards,
Shyamal
On 4/19/06, Erik Mouw <erik@harddisk-recovery.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 04:46:57PM +0530, Shyamal Sadanshio wrote:
> > I am newbie to GIT and facing some problem with the GIT usage. I am
> > trying to clone a repository at www.linux-mips.org with the
> > following command, I get error message as below:
> >
> > **************************************************************************
> > [root@sshyamal git-tutorial]# git clone
> > git://ftp.linux-mips.org/pub/scm/linux-malta.git linux-malta.git
> > git: warning: invalid extra options ignored
> >
> > GNU Interactive Tools 4.3.20 (i686-pc-linux-gnu), 12:39:46 Apr 18 2006
> > GIT is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the
> > terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
> > Software
> > Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later version.
> > Copyright (C) 1993-1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> > Written by Tudor Hulubei and Andrei Pitis, Bucharest, Romania
> >
> > git: fatal error: `chdir' failed: permission denied.
>
> You're using the wrong GIT. Remove the GNU Interactive Tools and use
> git from kernel.org.
>
> >
> ***************************************************************************
> >
> > I am exercising this command in root mode.
>
> There is absolutely zero reason to run git as root.
>
>
> Erik
>
> --
> +-- Erik Mouw -- www.harddisk-recovery.com -- +31 70 370 12 90 --
> | Lab address: Delftechpark 26, 2628 XH, Delft, The Netherlands
>
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: 1.3.0 creating bigger packs than 1.2.3
From: Shawn Pearce @ 2006-04-20 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0604200745550.3701@g5.osdl.org>
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Shawn Pearce wrote:
>
> > Apparently I have created a repository which v1.2.3 packs about 50%
> > smaller than 'next' does:
> >
> > v1.2.3 (tag):
> > 60M pack-7f766f5af5547554bacb28c0294bd562589dc5e7.pack
> >
> > 1.2.3.gf3a4 (an older 'next'):
> > 128M pack-7f766f5af5547554bacb28c0294bd562589dc5e7.pack
> >
> > 1.3.0.rc4.g8060 (a fairly recent 'next'):
> > 118M pack-7f766f5af5547554bacb28c0294bd562589dc5e7.pack
> >
> > Repeated packing with 1.3.0.rc4.g8060 doesn't seem to change the
> > size of the pack file, its pretty consistent at 118M.
>
> First try "git repack -a -d f", where the "-f" is the magic one.
>
> Without the -f, git repack will re-use old pack information, which is much
> much faster, but not as space-efficient.
>
> If that doesn't help, it might be time to look at the actual repo, but try
> that first.
So with 1.3.0.g56c1 "git repack -a -d -f" did worse:
Total 46391, written 46391 (delta 6649), reused 39742 (delta 0)
129M pack-7f766f5af5547554bacb28c0294bd562589dc5e7.pack
I just tried -f on v1.2.3 and it did slightly better then before:
Total 46391, written 46391 (delta 6847), reused 38012 (delta 0)
59M pack-7f766f5af5547554bacb28c0294bd562589dc5e7.pack
--
Shawn.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: 1.3.0 creating bigger packs than 1.2.3
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2006-04-20 16:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Shawn Pearce; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <20060420150315.GB31198@spearce.org>
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Shawn Pearce wrote:
>
> So with 1.3.0.g56c1 "git repack -a -d -f" did worse:
>
> Total 46391, written 46391 (delta 6649), reused 39742 (delta 0)
> 129M pack-7f766f5af5547554bacb28c0294bd562589dc5e7.pack
>
> I just tried -f on v1.2.3 and it did slightly better then before:
>
> Total 46391, written 46391 (delta 6847), reused 38012 (delta 0)
> 59M pack-7f766f5af5547554bacb28c0294bd562589dc5e7.pack
Interesting. The bigger packs do generate fewer deltas, but they don't
seem to be _that_ much fewer. And the deltas themselves certainly
shouldn't be bigger.
It almost sounds like there's a problem with choosing what to delta
against, not necessarily a delta algorithm problem. Although that sounds a
bit strange, because I wouldn't have thought we actually changed the
packing algorithm noticeably since 1.2.3.
Hmm. Doing "gitk v1.2.3.. -- pack-objects.c" shows that I was wrong. Junio
did the "hash basename and direname a bit differently" thing, which would
appear to change the "find objects to delta against" a lot. That could be
it.
You could try to revert that change:
git revert eeef7135fed9b8784627c4c96e125241c06c65e1
which needs a trivial manual fixup (remove the conflict entirely:
everything between the "<<<<" and ">>>>>" lines should go), and see if
that's it.
You can also try to see if
git repack -a -d -f --window=50
makes for a better pack (at the cost of a much slower repack). It makes
git try more objects to delta against, and can thus hide a bad sort order.
Junio, any other suggestions?
Linus
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: 1.3.0 creating bigger packs than 1.2.3
From: Nicolas Pitre @ 2006-04-20 16:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Shawn Pearce; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <20060420133640.GA31198@spearce.org>
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Shawn Pearce wrote:
> Given that disk is pretty cheap these days I'm not concerned about
> the 2x increase but thought I'd let folks know that the packing
> improvements in 1.3.0 seem to have taken a small step backwards
> with regards to this particular dataset.
2x is a huge regression.
> I can make the repository available if somebody wants to look at it.
Please.
Nicolas
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: 1.3.0 creating bigger packs than 1.2.3
From: Shawn Pearce @ 2006-04-20 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0604200857460.3701@g5.osdl.org>
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Shawn Pearce wrote:
> >
> > So with 1.3.0.g56c1 "git repack -a -d -f" did worse:
> >
> > Total 46391, written 46391 (delta 6649), reused 39742 (delta 0)
> > 129M pack-7f766f5af5547554bacb28c0294bd562589dc5e7.pack
> >
> > I just tried -f on v1.2.3 and it did slightly better then before:
> >
> > Total 46391, written 46391 (delta 6847), reused 38012 (delta 0)
> > 59M pack-7f766f5af5547554bacb28c0294bd562589dc5e7.pack
Oddly enough repacking the v1.2.3 pack using 1.3.0.g56c1 created an
even smaller pack ("git-repack -a -d"):
Total 46391, written 46391 (delta 8253), reused 44985 (delta 6847)
49M pack-7f766f5af5547554bacb28c0294bd562589dc5e7.pack
and repacking again with "git-repack -a -d" chopped another 1M:
Total 46391, written 46391 (delta 8258), reused 46386 (delta 8253)
48M pack-7f766f5af5547554bacb28c0294bd562589dc5e7.pac
but then adding -f definately gives us the 2x explosion again:
Total 46391, written 46391 (delta 6649), reused 37894 (delta 0)
129M pack-7f766f5af5547554bacb28c0294bd562589dc5e7.pack
> Interesting. The bigger packs do generate fewer deltas, but they don't
> seem to be _that_ much fewer. And the deltas themselves certainly
> shouldn't be bigger.
>
> It almost sounds like there's a problem with choosing what to delta
> against, not necessarily a delta algorithm problem. Although that sounds a
> bit strange, because I wouldn't have thought we actually changed the
> packing algorithm noticeably since 1.2.3.
>
> Hmm. Doing "gitk v1.2.3.. -- pack-objects.c" shows that I was wrong. Junio
> did the "hash basename and direname a bit differently" thing, which would
> appear to change the "find objects to delta against" a lot. That could be
> it.
>
> You could try to revert that change:
>
> git revert eeef7135fed9b8784627c4c96e125241c06c65e1
>
> which needs a trivial manual fixup (remove the conflict entirely:
> everything between the "<<<<" and ">>>>>" lines should go), and see if
> that's it.
Whoa. I did that revert and fixup on top of 'next'. The pack
from "git-repack -a -d -f" is now even larger due to even less
delta reuse:
Total 46391, written 46391 (delta 5148), reused 39565 (delta 0)
171M pack-7f766f5af5547554bacb28c0294bd562589dc5e7.pack
> You can also try to see if
>
> git repack -a -d -f --window=50
>
> makes for a better pack (at the cost of a much slower repack). It makes
> git try more objects to delta against, and can thus hide a bad sort order.
With --window=50 on 'next' (without the revert'):
Total 46391, written 46391 (delta 6666), reused 39723 (delta 0)
129M pack-7f766f5af5547554bacb28c0294bd562589dc5e7.pack
For added measure I tried --window=100 and 500 with pretty much
the same result (slightly higher delta but still a 129M pack).
--
Shawn.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: cg-clone produces "___" file and no working tree
From: Zack Brown @ 2006-04-20 16:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Petr Baudis; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <20060419144827.GX27631@pasky.or.cz>
Hi Petr,
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 04:48:27PM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Dear diary, on Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 04:21:31PM CEST, I got a letter
> where Zack Brown <zbrown@tumblerings.org> said that...
> > On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 11:49:16AM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote:
> > > Dear diary, on Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 07:36:40AM CEST, I got a letter
> > > where Zack Brown <zbrown@tumblerings.org> said that...
> > > > When I do something like
> > > > cg-clone rsync://rsync.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/git.git
> > > >
> > > > The first few lines of output are:
> > > >
> > > > defaulting to local storage area
> > > > warning: templates not found /home/zbrown/share/git-core/templates/
> > > > /home/zbrown/git/cogito/cg-clone: line 137: .git/info/cg-fetch-earlydie: No such file or directory
> > > > /home/zbrown/git/cogito/cg-clone: line 148: .git/info/cg-fetch-initial: No such file or directory
> > >
> > > Could you please list the contents of the .git subdirectory? It seems
> > > that git-init-db did not create the .git/info subdirectory.
> >
> > 07:19:57 [zbrown] ~/git/trees/tmp/git/.git$ ls -F
> > total 28
> > 4 HEAD 4 branches/ 4 config 4 index 4 info/ 4 objects/ 4 refs/
>
> hmm, could you please do this just after running git-init-db in an
> empty directory? I just realized cg-fetch will mkdir -p the .git/info/
> directory.
You're right, the "info" directory is not there if I just run git-init-db in an
empty directory.
> error. If the .git/info/ directory is not there after git-init-db,
> either it is somehow broken in git-1.3.0, or it belongs to a much older
> git version.
I just downloaded the latest versions of git and cogito from kernel.org:
cogito-0.17.2 and git-1.3.0; put their directories in my path, and ran "make" on
both of them. There's no other version in my path.
I see the same behavior: git-init-db does not create the .git/info directory.
>
> > 07:18:38 [zbrown] ~$ which git-init-db
> > /home/zbrown/git/git//git-init-db
> > 07:18:52 [zbrown] ~$ which git
> > /home/zbrown/git/git//git
>
> It might be a good idea to compare the ctimes.
09:46:55 [zbrown] ~/git/trees$ "ls" -ltc `which git; which git-init-db`
-rwxrwxr-x 2 zbrown zbrown 452312 Apr 20 09:44 /home/zbrown/git/git//git
-rwxrwxr-x 1 zbrown zbrown 235282 Apr 20 09:43 /home/zbrown/git/git//git-init-db
09:47:29 [zbrown] ~/git/trees$
Be well,
Zack
>
> --
> Petr "Pasky" Baudis
> Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
> Right now I am having amnesia and deja-vu at the same time. I think
> I have forgotten this before.
--
Zack Brown
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: 1.3.0 creating bigger packs than 1.2.3
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2006-04-20 17:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Shawn Pearce; +Cc: Git Mailing List, Nicolas Pitre
In-Reply-To: <20060420164351.GB31738@spearce.org>
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Shawn Pearce wrote:
>
> Oddly enough repacking the v1.2.3 pack using 1.3.0.g56c1 created an
> even smaller pack ("git-repack -a -d"):
That's "normal". Repacking without -f will always pack _more_, never less.
So a different packing algorithm can only improve (of course, usually not
by a huge margin, and it quickly diminishes).
> but then adding -f definately gives us the 2x explosion again:
>
> Total 46391, written 46391 (delta 6649), reused 37894 (delta 0)
> 129M pack-7f766f5af5547554bacb28c0294bd562589dc5e7.pack
Right. Doing the -f will discard any old packing info, so if the new
packing algorithm has problems (and it obviously does), then using -f will
show them.
> > You could try to revert that change:
> >
> > git revert eeef7135fed9b8784627c4c96e125241c06c65e1
>
> Whoa. I did that revert and fixup on top of 'next'. The pack
> from "git-repack -a -d -f" is now even larger due to even less
> delta reuse:
Ok, so that wasn't it, and the new sort order is superior.
That means that it probably _is_ the delta changes themselves (probably
commit c13c6bf7 "diff-delta: bound hash list length to avoid O(m*n)
behavior". You can try
git revert c13c6bf7
to see if that's it. Although Nico already showed interest, and if you
make the archive available to him, he's sure to figure it out.
> With --window=50 on 'next' (without the revert'):
>
> Total 46391, written 46391 (delta 6666), reused 39723 (delta 0)
> 129M pack-7f766f5af5547554bacb28c0294bd562589dc5e7.pack
Yeah, that didn't do much. Slightly more deltas than without, but not a
lot, and it didn't matter much size-wise.
You can try "--depth=50" (slogan: more "hot delta on delta action"), but
it's looking less and less like a delta selection issue, and more and more
like the deltas themselves are deproved.
Linus
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: 1.3.0 creating bigger packs than 1.2.3
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2006-04-20 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0604200954440.3701@g5.osdl.org>
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:
> You can try "--depth=50" (slogan: more "hot delta on delta action"), but
> it's looking less and less like a delta selection issue, and more and more
> like the deltas themselves are deproved.
I do not think I have time to look into this today until late
night, but one thing I noticed is that trying to delta more
things sometimes tend to produce bigger result X-<.
At the end of pack-objects.c::find_deltas(), there is a code
that is commented out, which is remnant from a failed
experiment. What it tried to do was to avoid placing an object
whose delta depth is already window-size back into the
candidates list, which means the next object gets compared with
one object more than otherwise would be (the extra one being the
oldest one in the window -- which might not produce better delta
than the maxed out one, but the delta with the maxed out one
would not be used anyway). The result was noticeably worse
overall packsize with more deltified objects.
We might be better off favoring compressed undeltified
representation over deltified representation a bit more
aggressively. Currently we allow delta as big as half the
uncompressed size minus 20-byte overhead or something like that;
tweaking that limit might show improvements.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: 1.3.0 creating bigger packs than 1.2.3
From: Shawn Pearce @ 2006-04-20 17:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Git Mailing List, Nicolas Pitre
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0604200954440.3701@g5.osdl.org>
I just spent some time bisecting this issue and it looks like the
following change by Junio may be the culprit:
commit 1d6b38cc76c348e2477506ca9759fc241e3d0d46
Author: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Wed Feb 22 22:10:24 2006 -0800
pack-objects: use full pathname to help hashing with "thin" pack.
This uses the same hashing algorithm to the "preferred base
tree" objects and the incoming pathnames, to group the same
files from different revs together, while spreading files with
the same basename in different directories.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
:100644 100644 af3bdf5d358b8a47ed23bcb7e9721e956eb59d60 3a16b7e4ce25ec05c64817dfd92dd9d517ab9dd3 M pack-objects.c
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Shawn Pearce wrote:
> >
> > Oddly enough repacking the v1.2.3 pack using 1.3.0.g56c1 created an
> > even smaller pack ("git-repack -a -d"):
>
> That's "normal". Repacking without -f will always pack _more_, never less.
> So a different packing algorithm can only improve (of course, usually not
> by a huge margin, and it quickly diminishes).
>
> > but then adding -f definately gives us the 2x explosion again:
> >
> > Total 46391, written 46391 (delta 6649), reused 37894 (delta 0)
> > 129M pack-7f766f5af5547554bacb28c0294bd562589dc5e7.pack
>
> Right. Doing the -f will discard any old packing info, so if the new
> packing algorithm has problems (and it obviously does), then using -f will
> show them.
>
> > > You could try to revert that change:
> > >
> > > git revert eeef7135fed9b8784627c4c96e125241c06c65e1
> >
> > Whoa. I did that revert and fixup on top of 'next'. The pack
> > from "git-repack -a -d -f" is now even larger due to even less
> > delta reuse:
>
> Ok, so that wasn't it, and the new sort order is superior.
>
> That means that it probably _is_ the delta changes themselves (probably
> commit c13c6bf7 "diff-delta: bound hash list length to avoid O(m*n)
> behavior". You can try
>
> git revert c13c6bf7
>
> to see if that's it. Although Nico already showed interest, and if you
> make the archive available to him, he's sure to figure it out.
>
> > With --window=50 on 'next' (without the revert'):
> >
> > Total 46391, written 46391 (delta 6666), reused 39723 (delta 0)
> > 129M pack-7f766f5af5547554bacb28c0294bd562589dc5e7.pack
>
> Yeah, that didn't do much. Slightly more deltas than without, but not a
> lot, and it didn't matter much size-wise.
>
> You can try "--depth=50" (slogan: more "hot delta on delta action"), but
> it's looking less and less like a delta selection issue, and more and more
> like the deltas themselves are deproved.
>
> Linus
--
Shawn.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: cg-clone produces "___" file and no working tree
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2006-04-20 17:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Zack Brown; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <20060420164908.GA540@tumblerings.org>
Zack Brown <zbrown@tumblerings.org> writes:
> I just downloaded the latest versions of git and cogito from kernel.org:
> cogito-0.17.2 and git-1.3.0; put their directories in my path, and ran "make" on
> both of them. There's no other version in my path.
Earlier, you were having this symptom:
>> What do these command say?
>>
>> $ git --exec-path
>> $ ls -l "`git --exec-path`/git-clone"
>
> 22:07:05 [zbrown] ~$ git --exec-path
> /home/zbrown/bin
> 07:10:34 [zbrown] ~$ ls -l "`git --exec-path`/git-clone"
> ls: /home/zbrown/bin/git-clone: No such file or directory
>
> Does that mean it's looking in /home/zbrown/bin for the git binaries?
If that is the case, you did not just (quote) "and ran "make"".
You must have run "make frotz=xyzzy target", but you did not mention
what frotz, xyzzy and target were.
> 09:46:55 [zbrown] ~/git/trees$ "ls" -ltc `which git; which git-init-db`
> -rwxrwxr-x 2 zbrown zbrown 452312 Apr 20 09:44 /home/zbrown/git/git//git
> -rwxrwxr-x 1 zbrown zbrown 235282 Apr 20 09:43 /home/zbrown/git/git//git-init-db
So you are doing
make bindir=$HOME/git/git/ install
as the last step of your installation. I _strongly_ suspect
your breakage is caused because you did a make with different
configuration before that. That is, if you do this, that is
consistent with the symptom:
make
make bindir=$HOME/git/git/ gitexecdir=$HOME/git/git/ install
It probably would help if you did this:
make clean
make bindir=$HOME/git/git gitexecdir=$HOME/git/git/
make bindir=$HOME/git/git gitexecdir=$HOME/git/git/ install
As I said in a previous message, the first paragraph in INSTALL
file explains this.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: 1.3.0 creating bigger packs than 1.2.3
From: Nicolas Pitre @ 2006-04-20 17:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Shawn Pearce, Git Mailing List
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0604200954440.3701@g5.osdl.org>
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> That means that it probably _is_ the delta changes themselves (probably
> commit c13c6bf7 "diff-delta: bound hash list length to avoid O(m*n)
> behavior". You can try
>
> git revert c13c6bf7
>
> to see if that's it. Although Nico already showed interest, and if you
> make the archive available to him, he's sure to figure it out.
It is not that. With that code disabled there is still a 2x pack size.
Substituting diff-delta.c from the version in 1.2.3 doesn't solve the
issue either.
Nicolas
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: 1.3.0 creating bigger packs than 1.2.3
From: Nicolas Pitre @ 2006-04-20 17:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Shawn Pearce; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, Git Mailing List
In-Reply-To: <20060420173131.GF31738@spearce.org>
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Shawn Pearce wrote:
> I just spent some time bisecting this issue and it looks like the
> following change by Junio may be the culprit:
>
> commit 1d6b38cc76c348e2477506ca9759fc241e3d0d46
> Author: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
> Date: Wed Feb 22 22:10:24 2006 -0800
>
> pack-objects: use full pathname to help hashing with "thin" pack.
>
> This uses the same hashing algorithm to the "preferred base
> tree" objects and the incoming pathnames, to group the same
> files from different revs together, while spreading files with
> the same basename in different directories.
>
> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
>
> :100644 100644 af3bdf5d358b8a47ed23bcb7e9721e956eb59d60 3a16b7e4ce25ec05c64817dfd92dd9d517ab9dd3 M pack-objects.c
Hmmm... This one is for Junio to fix I'd say. Not sure what it does.
Nicolas
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: 1.3.0 creating bigger packs than 1.2.3
From: Shawn Pearce @ 2006-04-20 17:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Git Mailing List, Nicolas Pitre
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0604200954440.3701@g5.osdl.org>
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
> Ok, so that wasn't it, and the new sort order is superior.
>
> That means that it probably _is_ the delta changes themselves (probably
> commit c13c6bf7 "diff-delta: bound hash list length to avoid O(m*n)
> behavior". You can try
>
> git revert c13c6bf7
No effect.
> to see if that's it. Although Nico already showed interest, and if you
> make the archive available to him, he's sure to figure it out.
I sent the URL privately to Nico as I did not want the repository
to be publically available before next Tuesday.
> You can try "--depth=50" (slogan: more "hot delta on delta action"), but
> it's looking less and less like a delta selection issue, and more and more
> like the deltas themselves are deproved.
No effect at either 50 or 100.
The more that I think about it the more it seems possible that the
pathname hashing is what may be causing the problem. Not only did
bisect point to 1d6b38cc76c348e2477506ca9759fc241e3d0d46 but the
directory which contains the bulk of the space has many files with
the same name located in different directories:
results/MT/Math/10000/0-11-AdjLite.deg
results/MT/Math/10000/0-12-AdjLite.deg
...
results/MT/Math/30000/2-11-AdjLite.deg
results/MT/Math/30000/2-12-AdjLite.deg
...
results/Rand48/Math/10000/2-11-AdjLite.deg
results/Rand48/Math/10000/2-12-AdjLite.deg
...
results/Rand48/Math/30000/2-11-AdjLite.deg
results/Rand48/Math/30000/2-12-AdjLite.deg
...
For example the name '0-11-AdjLite.deg' occurs in 63 directories and
none of those occurrances are likely to delta against one another
very well. Also most of these files only have 1 or 2 revisions,
so there is very little per-file history.
--
Shawn.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: n-heads and patch dependency chains
From: Jon Loeliger @ 2006-04-20 18:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andreas Ericsson; +Cc: Jakub Narebski, Git List
In-Reply-To: <44325CDB.2000101@op5.se>
On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 06:47, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> No, I mean that this would commit both to the testing branch (being the
> result of several merged topic-branches) and to the topic-branch merged
> in. Commit as in regular commit, with a commit-message and a patch. The
> resulting repository would be the exact same as if the change was
> committed only to the topic-branch and then cherry-picked on to the
> testing-branch.
I am your number one fan! If I finish reading these 600+
messages, will I find out you have already implemented it,
it's committed, and you just need me to test it now? :-)
jdl
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: 1.3.0 creating bigger packs than 1.2.3
From: Nicolas Pitre @ 2006-04-20 18:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Shawn Pearce; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, Git Mailing List
In-Reply-To: <20060420175554.GH31738@spearce.org>
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Shawn Pearce wrote:
> The more that I think about it the more it seems possible that the
> pathname hashing is what may be causing the problem. Not only did
> bisect point to 1d6b38cc76c348e2477506ca9759fc241e3d0d46 but the
> directory which contains the bulk of the space has many files with
> the same name located in different directories:
[...]
But the bad commit according to your bisection talks about "thin" packs
which are not involved in your case. So something looks fishy with that
commit which should not have touched path hashing in the non-thin pack
case... I think...
Nicolas
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: 1.3.0 creating bigger packs than 1.2.3
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2006-04-20 18:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nicolas Pitre; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0604201414490.2215@localhost.localdomain>
Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> writes:
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Shawn Pearce wrote:
>
>> The more that I think about it the more it seems possible that the
>> pathname hashing is what may be causing the problem. Not only did
>> bisect point to 1d6b38cc76c348e2477506ca9759fc241e3d0d46 but the
>> directory which contains the bulk of the space has many files with
>> the same name located in different directories:
> [...]
>
> But the bad commit according to your bisection talks about "thin" packs
> which are not involved in your case. So something looks fishy with that
> commit which should not have touched path hashing in the non-thin pack
> case... I think...
I think this explains it. The new code hashes full-path, but
places bins for the paths with the same basename next to each
other, so before Makefile and doc/Makefile and t/Makefile were
all in the same bin, but now they are in three different bins
next to each other.
I originally thought, with one single notable exception of
Makefile, having the identically named file in many different
directories is not common nor sane, and the new code favors to
delta with the exact same path for deeper history over wasting
delta window for making delta with objects with the same name in
different places in more recent history. I think I benched this
with kernel repository (git.git was too small for that).
But I suspect we have a built-in "we sort bigger to smaller, and
we cut off when we switch bins" somewhere in find_delta() loop,
which I do not recall touching when I did that change, so that
may be interfering and preventing 0-11-AdjLite.deg from all over
the place to delta against each other.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: n-heads and patch dependency chains
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2006-04-20 18:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
In-Reply-To: <1145556505.5314.149.camel@cashmere.sps.mot.com>
Jon Loeliger <jdl@freescale.com> writes:
> On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 06:47, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
>
>> No, I mean that this would commit both to the testing branch (being the
>> result of several merged topic-branches) and to the topic-branch merged
>> in. Commit as in regular commit, with a commit-message and a patch. The
>> resulting repository would be the exact same as if the change was
>> committed only to the topic-branch and then cherry-picked on to the
>> testing-branch.
To be consistent, I think the result should be "as if the change
was commited only to the topic-branch and then the topic-branch
was *merged* into the testing-branch", since you start your
testing branch as "being the result of several merged topic-branches".
I do that (manually) all the time, with:
$ git checkout next
$ hack hack hack
$ git checkout -m one/topic
$ git commit -o this-path that-path
$ git checkout next
$ git pull . one/topic
Giving a short-hand for the last four-command sequence would
certainly be nice.
> I am your number one fan! If I finish reading these 600+
> messages, will I find out you have already implemented it,
> it's committed, and you just need me to test it now? :-)
Likewise... ;-)
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: cg-clone produces "___" file and no working tree
From: Zack Brown @ 2006-04-20 20:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <7vejzsywrq.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 10:36:25AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Zack Brown <zbrown@tumblerings.org> writes:
>
> > I just downloaded the latest versions of git and cogito from kernel.org:
> > cogito-0.17.2 and git-1.3.0; put their directories in my path, and ran "make" on
> > both of them. There's no other version in my path.
>
> Earlier, you were having this symptom:
>
> >> What do these command say?
> >>
> >> $ git --exec-path
> >> $ ls -l "`git --exec-path`/git-clone"
> >
> > 22:07:05 [zbrown] ~$ git --exec-path
> > /home/zbrown/bin
> > 07:10:34 [zbrown] ~$ ls -l "`git --exec-path`/git-clone"
> > ls: /home/zbrown/bin/git-clone: No such file or directory
> >
> > Does that mean it's looking in /home/zbrown/bin for the git binaries?
>
> If that is the case, you did not just (quote) "and ran "make"".
>
> You must have run "make frotz=xyzzy target", but you did not mention
> what frotz, xyzzy and target were.
Not true. I went into the git source directory, and ran "make". Nothing more.
I've been doing that for a long time, whenever I sync with the repository. I
didn't know the installation instructions had changed.
> It probably would help if you did this:
>
> make clean
> make bindir=$HOME/git/git gitexecdir=$HOME/git/git/
> make bindir=$HOME/git/git gitexecdir=$HOME/git/git/ install
OK, I did this. The first 2 commands worked fine. The third complained of
duplicate files, and exited with an error. Maybe because the source tree is also
$HOME/git/git
I then did a 'cd ..; mkdir tmp; cd tmp; git-init-db' as before, but there
is still no ".git/info" entry created.
Be well,
Zack
>
> As I said in a previous message, the first paragraph in INSTALL
> file explains this.
>
--
Zack Brown
^ permalink raw reply
page: next (older) | prev (newer) | latest
- recent:[subjects (threaded)|topics (new)|topics (active)]
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox