Julian Foad <julianf...@apache.org> writes: > We could swap the scanning logic around to do the (quick) check for > missing pristines before deciding whether a (slower) file "stat" is > necessary. Positives: eliminates the redundant "stat" overhead which may > be significant in working trees containing many files. Negatives: some > re-work needed in the current implementation. > > Of these, the last one currently looks viable and useful. > > Does that one look promising to you?
I might be missing something, but I don't yet see how we could save a stat(). Currently, a pristine is hydrated if and only if the corresponding working file is modified. Let's say we check if a pristine is hydrated beforehand. If we find out that pristine is dehydrated, we have to stat(), because if the file is modified, then we need to hydrate. If we find out that pristine is hydrated, we still have to stat(), because if the file is no longer modified, then we need to dehydrate. Thanks, Evgeny Kotkov
