Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 17:05, Greg KH a écrit : > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 03:57:53PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > I still believe we want this shell-based backup-script, no matter how > > high the performance penalty is. quilt was written in bash after all, > > which pretty much implies that we do no care about performance; > > Um, no, I would disagree. I deal with a tree that is almost always over > 300 patches, and push and pop all of them many, many, times a day. > Making 'quilt pop' 3 times slower would drive me crazy, I already feel > it's a bit too slow in places...
Feel free to rewrite quilt entirely in C then, I'm sure it would be much, much faster :) After my cleanups, the slowdown factor for "quilt pop" was "only" 2.4. But it was a long time ago, I don't know if these numbers are still accurate. With some more work I hope we can get it down to 2 or less. One thing I had in mind was turning backup-files into a shell function rather than a standalone shell script... I'm fairly certain that the cost of starting a separate bash instance is significant so we could save on this. Not sure how to deal with getopt then though. And I can't disagree entirely with you, I find "quilt pop" slow as well. Note that "quilt pop -af" is much faster, and in many cases is equivalent to "quilt pop -a". But of course it's easy to lose changes if used inappropriately. Another trick is -q, which makes the output less verbose, that can make a significant difference with a slow display and/or remote connection. You might want to add "QUILT_POP_ARGS=-q" to your ~/.quiltrc. -- Jean Delvare Suse L3 _______________________________________________ Quilt-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/quilt-dev
