> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff King [mailto:p...@peff.net]
> Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 5:38 PM
> To: Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com>
> Cc: Ben Peart <peart...@gmail.com>; git@vger.kernel.org;
> pclo...@gmail.com; =peart...@gmail.com; Ben Peart
> <benpe...@microsoft.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkout: eliminate unnecessary merge for trivial
> checkout
> 
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 02:22:16PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
> > > + /*
> > > +  * Optimize the performance of checkout when the current and
> > > +  * new branch have the same OID and avoid the trivial merge.
> > > +  * For example, a "git checkout -b foo" just needs to create
> > > +  * the new ref and report the stats.
> > > +  */
> > > + if (!old.commit || !new->commit
> > > +         || oidcmp(&old.commit->object.oid, &new->commit-
> >object.oid)
> > > +         || !opts->new_branch || opts->new_branch_force || opts-
> >new_orphan_branch
> > > +         || opts->patch_mode || opts->merge || opts->force || opts-
> >force_detach
> > > +         || opts->writeout_stage || !opts->overwrite_ignore
> > > +         || opts->ignore_skipworktree || opts-
> >ignore_other_worktrees
> > > +         || opts->new_branch_log || opts->branch_exists || opts-
> >prefix
> > > +         || opts->source_tree) {
> >
> > ... this is a maintenance nightmare in that any new option we will add
> > later will need to consider what this "optimization" is trying
> > (not) to skip.  The first two lines (i.e. we need a real checkout if
> > we cannot positively say that old and new commits are the same
> > object) are clear, but no explanation was given for all the other
> > random conditions this if condition checks.  What if opts->something
> > was not listed (or "listed" for that matter) in the list above--it is
> > totally unclear if it was missed by mistake (or "added by
> > mistake") or deliberately excluded (or "deliberately added").
> >
> > For example, why is opts->prefix there?  If
> >
> >     git checkout -b new-branch HEAD
> >
> > should be able to omit the two-way merge, shouldn't
> >
> >     cd t && git checkout -b new-branch HEAD
> >
> > also be able to?

Because this induces a behavior change (the optimized path will no 
longer do a "soft reset" and regenerate the index for example) I was
attempting to make it as restrictive as possible but still enable the
fast path in the most common case.  If everyone is OK with the behavior
change, I can make the optimization more inclusive by removing those
tests that are not absolutely required (like opts->prefix).

To help ensure the optimization is updated when new checkout options are
added I could add a comment into the checkout_opts structure and/or put
a pseudo version check into the code so if the size of the structure
changes, the fast path fails.  That feels a little hacky and I haven't
seen that in other areas so I'd rather stick with splitting it out into
a helper function and add comments.

> 
> I was just writing another reply, but I think our complaints may have
> dovetailed.
> 
> My issue is that the condition above is an unreadable mass.  It would be
> really nice to pull it out into a helper function, and then all of the items 
> could
> be split out and commented independently, like:
> 
>   static int needs_working_tree_merge(const struct checkout_opts *opts,
>                                       const struct branch_info *old,
>                                     const struct branch_info *new)
>   {
>       /*
>        * We must do the merge if we are actually moving to a new
>        * commit.
>        */
>       if (!old->commit || !new->commit ||
>           oidcmp(&old.commit->object.oid, &new->commit->object.oid))
>               return 1;
> 
>       /* Option "foo" is not compatible because of... */
>       if (opts->foo)
>               return 1;
> 
>       ... etc ...
>   }

That is a great suggestion.  Splitting this out into a helper function 
with comments will definitely make this more readable/maintainable and 
provide more information on why each test is there.  I'll do that and
reroll the patch.

> 
> That still leaves your "what if opts->something is not listed" question open,
> but at least it makes it easier to comment on it in the code.
> 
> -Peff
> 
> PS I didn't think hard on whether the conditions above make _sense_. My
>    first goal would be to get more communication about them individually,
>    and then we can evaluate them.


Reply via email to