From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
Cc: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>, Git <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: git tag --contains now takes a long time
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 14:28:44 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqq1tctchgz.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOLa=ZTDd3MSmqXArtNz8i5n=uj2NEB6UPk2jSnEhUsAqbr7nQ@mail.gmail.com> (Karthik Nayak's message of "Sat, 17 Oct 2015 12:14:58 +0530")
Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
> So I did poke around a little. I think I missed this out on the
> original commit (b7cc53e92c806b73e14b03f60c17b7c29e52b4a4).
>
> diff --git a/builtin/tag.c b/builtin/tag.c
> index 977a18c..2c5a9f1 100644
> --- a/builtin/tag.c
> +++ b/builtin/tag.c
> @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ static int list_tags(struct ref_filter *filter,
> struct ref_sorting *sorting)
> format = "%(refname:short)";
>
> verify_ref_format(format);
> + filter->with_commit_tag_algo = 1;
> filter_refs(&array, filter, FILTER_REFS_TAGS);
> ref_array_sort(sorting, &array);
> ...
>
> Could you Squash that in, Junio?
Do we have two implementations that are supposed to compute the same
thing, and with the bit set to 1, the faster of these two is used?
Is there a reason somebody may want to use the slower one? What
difference other than performance does the choice of this bit makes,
and why?
I think the answers to the above questions deserve to be in the log
message (no, I do not think I can "squash it in", rewriting the
commit that has already been merged to 'next' and 'master').
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-17 21:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-16 22:07 git tag --contains now takes a long time Jerry Snitselaar
2015-10-16 22:37 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-10-17 6:44 ` Karthik Nayak
2015-10-17 9:51 ` Jerry Snitselaar
2015-10-17 15:58 ` Matthieu Moy
2015-10-17 18:10 ` Karthik Nayak
2015-10-17 21:28 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2015-10-18 10:04 ` Karthik Nayak
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqq1tctchgz.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jsnitsel@redhat.com \
--cc=karthik.188@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).