Ping?
We are at -rc0, this progress output is a new feature since v2.19.0,
and the numbers shown are still way off.
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 06:54:47PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 03:33:35PM +, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
> > @@ -560,6 +563,9 @@ static int add_p
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 03:33:35PM +, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> @@ -560,6 +563,9 @@ static int add_packed_commits(const struct object_id *oid,
> off_t offset = nth_packed_object_offset(pack, pos);
> struct object_info oi = OBJECT_INFO_INIT;
>
> + if (list->progress)
>
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 07:52:21PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 10 2018, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 10 2018, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 11:56:45PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Oct 10 2018, SZEDER Gábor
On 10/12/2018 11:07 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Makes sense. If this second iteration were also time consuming,
then it probably is a good idea to split these into two separate
phases? "Counting 1...N" followed by "Inspecting 1...N" or
somethin
On Fri, Oct 12 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> SZEDER Gábor writes:
>
>>> for (i = 0; i < oids->nr; i++) {
>>> + display_progress(progress, ++j);
>>> commit = lookup_commit(the_repository, &oids->list[i]);
>>>
>>> if (commit && !parse_commit(commit))
>>> @@ -
SZEDER Gábor writes:
>> for (i = 0; i < oids->nr; i++) {
>> +display_progress(progress, ++j);
>> commit = lookup_commit(the_repository, &oids->list[i]);
>>
>> if (commit && !parse_commit(commit))
>> @@ -611,19 +624,28 @@ static void close_reachable(str
On Wed, Oct 10 2018, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10 2018, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 11:56:45PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 10 2018, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>>
>>> >> for (i = 0; i < oids->nr; i++) {
>>> >> +di
On Wed, Oct 10 2018, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 11:56:45PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 10 2018, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>
>> >> for (i = 0; i < oids->nr; i++) {
>> >> + display_progress(progress, ++j);
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > This display_progress()
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 11:56:45PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10 2018, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> >>for (i = 0; i < oids->nr; i++) {
> >> + display_progress(progress, ++j);
>
> [...]
>
> > This display_progress() call, however, doesn't seem to be necessary.
> > F
On Wed, Oct 10 2018, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 03:33:35PM +, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> $ git -c gc.writeCommitGraph=true gc
>> [...]
>> Annotating commits in commit graph: 1565573, done.
>> Computing commit graph generation numbers: 100% (782484/78
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 03:33:35PM +, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> $ git -c gc.writeCommitGraph=true gc
> [...]
> Annotating commits in commit graph: 1565573, done.
> Computing commit graph generation numbers: 100% (782484/782484), done.
While poking around 'commit-graph.c'
Before this change the "commit-graph write" command didn't report any
progress. On my machine this command takes more than 10 seconds to
write the graph for linux.git, and around 1m30s on the
2015-04-03-1M-git.git[1] test repository (a test case for a large
monorepository).
Furthermore, since the
12 matches
Mail list logo
