On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 09:51:20AM +0200, j. van den hoff wrote: > incidentally I'm using nearly exactly the same approach including the call > to `status' (as I was under the same misconception that it should be the > "most efficient" way to get at the sha1 hash). so I have just switched to > `info' as well. but calling `status' two times in a row, one sees that the > second call is much faster, so I presume `status' is reading a lot of stuff > which then is cached. since the information displayed by `info' and `status' > seems virtually identical: what is the reason for the high latency of a > first `status' call?
status checks whether any files are changed. As such, it has to stat(2) everything first. Joerg _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
