Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>>> As to the default of seriously slowing down all SHA-1 computations:
>>> since you made that the default, at compile time, with no way to turn
>>> on the faster computation, this will have a
Jeff King writes:
> Side note: I also have a feeling that any operation that cares about
> non-object sha1 performance is probably ripe for other, bigger
> optimizations. If you update 300MB worth of index entries, then the
> cost of computing a checksum over it isn't a big deal. But if y
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:16:23AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > If I write out an index, I should not suffer the slowdown from detecting
> > collisions.
>
> The index case is a complete red herring.
>
> As already noted, the proper fix for the index case is to simply do it
> asynchronously o
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Johannes Schindelin
wrote:
>
> What I am saying is that this should be a more fine-grained, runtime knob.
No it really shouldn't.
> If I write out an index, I should not suffer the slowdown from detecting
> collisions.
The index case is a complete red herring.
Hi Jonathan,
On Wed, 22 Mar 2017, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > As to the default of seriously slowing down all SHA-1 computations:
> > since you made that the default, at compile time, with no way to turn
> > on the faster computation, this will have a major, negativ
Hi,
Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> As to the default of seriously slowing down all SHA-1 computations: since
> you made that the default, at compile time, with no way to turn on the
> faster computation, this will have a major, negative impact. Are you
> really, really sure you want to do that?
>
>
Hi Junio,
On Tue, 21 Mar 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin writes:
>
> > On Fri, 17 Mar 2017, Lars Schneider wrote:
> >
> >> > On 17 Mar 2017, at 11:18, Lars Schneider
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Would it make sense/have value to add a job to our TravisCI build
> >> > [1] that
Johannes Schindelin writes:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017, Lars Schneider wrote:
>
>> > On 17 Mar 2017, at 11:18, Lars Schneider
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Would it make sense/have value to add a job to our TravisCI build [1]
>> > that compiles Git in a few variations with some high profile switches
>> > su
Hi Lars,
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017, Lars Schneider wrote:
> > On 17 Mar 2017, at 11:18, Lars Schneider
> > wrote:
> >
> > Would it make sense/have value to add a job to our TravisCI build [1]
> > that compiles Git in a few variations with some high profile switches
> > such as USE_SHA1DC? Running all
> On 17 Mar 2017, at 11:18, Lars Schneider wrote:
>
>
>> On 17 Mar 2017, at 03:22, Linus Torvalds
>> wrote:
>>
>> I think there's a semantic merge error and it clashes with
>> f18f816cb158 ("hash.h: move SHA-1 implementation selection into a
>> header file").
>>
>> Suggested possible merge
> On 17 Mar 2017, at 03:22, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>
> I think there's a semantic merge error and it clashes with
> f18f816cb158 ("hash.h: move SHA-1 implementation selection into a
> header file").
>
> Suggested possible merge resolution attached.
>
> Linus
>
Would it ma
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> I'll send a patch on top of 'next', which already has the header file changes.
Patches sent. It all looked fairly straightforward to me, but maybe I
missed something.
Linus
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> That's easy to answer. What we have on 'pu' is a fair game for
> wholesale replacement. That is the whole point of not merging
> topics in flux to 'next' and declaring that 'pu' will constantly
> rewind.
Ok.
I'll send a patch on top o
Linus Torvalds writes:
> I think there's a semantic merge error and it clashes with
> f18f816cb158 ("hash.h: move SHA-1 implementation selection into a
> header file").
>
> Suggested possible merge resolution attached.
>
>Linus
Obviously I have not been paying much attention
Linus Torvalds writes:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Jeff King wrote:
>>
>> Potentially we should just eject sha1dc from "pu" for the moment. It
>> needs re-rolled with the most recent version of the collision library
>> (and I see Marc just posted that they hit a stable point, which is
>>
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Jeff King wrote:
>
> Potentially we should just eject sha1dc from "pu" for the moment. It
> needs re-rolled with the most recent version of the collision library
> (and I see Marc just posted that they hit a stable point, which is
> perhaps why you're looking at i
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:22:00PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I think there's a semantic merge error and it clashes with
> f18f816cb158 ("hash.h: move SHA-1 implementation selection into a
> header file").
>
> Suggested possible merge resolution attached.
Yeah, your resolution makes sense.
I think there's a semantic merge error and it clashes with
f18f816cb158 ("hash.h: move SHA-1 implementation selection into a
header file").
Suggested possible merge resolution attached.
Linus
Makefile | 2 +-
hash.h | 2 ++
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
di
18 matches
Mail list logo