Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> 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.

What is it really doing?  I think the main culprit is
require_clean_work_tree() from git-sh-setup.sh, and that is only run
in the `--continue` and `exec` codepaths.
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