On Tue, 26 Jul, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>                               AFAICT this is
> just a complete waste of time.  Why does this occur?
> Packing 1394 objects
> Unpacking 1394 objects
>   100% (1394/1394) done
> It doesn't seem to make any sense to perform work, then immediately undo
> that work, just for a local pull.

First, make sure you have a recent git, it does better at optimizing the 
objects, so there are fewer of them. Of course, the above could be a real 
pull of a a fair amount of work, but check that your git has this commit:

        commit 4311d328fee11fbd80862e3c5de06a26a0e80046

            Be more aggressive about marking trees uninteresting

because otherwise you sometimes get a fair number of objects just because
git-rev-list wasn't always being very careful, and took more objects than
it strictly needed.

Secondly, what's the problem? Sure, I could special-case the local case, 
but do you really want to have two _totally_ different code-paths? In 
other words, it's absolutely NOT a complete waste of time: it's very much 
a case of trying to have a unified architecture, and the fact that it 
spends a few seconds doing things in a way that is network-transparent is 
time well spent.

Put another way: do you argue that X network transparency is a total waste
of time? You could certainly optimize X if you always made it be
local-machine only. Or you could make tons of special cases, and have X 
have separate code-paths for local clients and for remote clients, rather 
than just always opening a socket connection.

See? Trying to have one really solid code-path is not a waste of time. 

We do end up having a special code-path for "clone" (the "-l" flag), which
does need it, but I seriously doubt you need it for a local pull. The most 
expensive operation in a local pull tends to be (if the repositories are 
unpacked and cold-cache) just figuring out the objects to pull, not the 
packing/unpacking per se.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to