On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
<artag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For large repositories, many simple git commands like `git status`
> take a while to respond.  I understand that this is because of large
> number of stat() calls to figure out which files were changed.  I
> overheard that Mercurial wants to solve this problem using itnotify,
> but the idea bothers me because it's not portable.  Will Git ever
> consider using inotify on Linux?  What is the downside?

There's one relatively easy sub-task of this that I haven't seen
mentioned: Improving the speed of interactive rebase on large (as in
lots of checked out files) repositories.

That's the single biggest thing that bothers me when I use Git with
large repos, not the speed of "git status". When you "git rebase -i
HEAD~100" re-arrange some patches and save the TODO list it takes say
0.5-1s for each patch to be applied, but at least 10x less than that
on a small repository. E.g. try this on linux-2.6.git v.s. some small
project with a few dozen files.

I looked into this a long while ago and remembered that rebase was
doing something like a git status for every commit that it made to
check the dirtyness.

This could be vastly improved by having an unsafe option to git-rebase
where it just assumes that the starting state + whatever it wrote out
is the current state, i.e. it would break if someone stuck up on your
checkout during an interactive rebase and changed a file, but the
common case of the user having exclusive access to the repo and
waiting for the rebase would be much faster.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to