David Turner <dtur...@twopensource.com> writes:

>> I am not convinced that doing an equivalent of write-tree when you
>> switch branches is the right approach in the first place.  You will
>> eventually write it out as a tree, and having a relatively undamaged
>> cache-tree will help you when you do so, but spending the cycles
>> necessary to compute a fully populated cache-tree, only to let it
>> degrade over time until you are ready to write it out as a tree,
>> somehow sounds like asking for a duplicated work upfront.
> As I understand it, the cache-tree extension was originally designed to
> speed up writing the tree later.  However, as Karsten Blees's work (and
> my own tests) have shown, it also speeds up git status.  I use git
> status a lot while working, and I've talked to a few others who do the
> same.  So I think it's worth spending extra time when switching branches
> to have a good working experience within that branch.

You are reading the history of the subsystem correctly.  Since
b65982b6 (Optimize "diff-index --cached" using cache-tree,
2009-05-20), having an undamaged cache-tree does help with "git
status" as well.

> In the new version of the patchset (which I'll post shortly), I've added
> an option WRITE_TREE_REPAIR, which does all of the work to compute a new
> tree object, but only adds it to the cache-tree if it already exists
> on-disk.  This is a little wasteful for the reason that you note.  So if
> you would like, I could add a config option to skip it.  But I think it
> is a good default.

OK, sounds good.

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