On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 10:20:37PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
@@ -617,6 +618,8 @@ static struct commit_list
*paint_down_to_common(struct commit *one, int n, struc
one-object.flags |= PARENT1;
commit_list_insert_by_date(one,
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Here is a tested (in the sense that it passes the test suite, and
also in the sense that an empty pull in the kernel history gives
quick turnaround) patch. As I do not think we would want to revert
5802f81 (fmt-merge-msg: discard needless merge
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 01:34:02PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
OK, I think I am convinced myself that this patch is the right fix.
The performance regression Markus saw is in fmt-merge-message, and
it is caused by the updated remove_redundant() that is used by
get_merge_bases_many() and
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
@@ -617,6 +618,8 @@ static struct commit_list *paint_down_to_common(struct
commit *one, int n, struc
one-object.flags |= PARENT1;
commit_list_insert_by_date(one, list);
+ if (!n)
+ return list;
for (i = 0; i n; i++) {
Hi,
with current trunk I get the following on an up-to-date Linux tree:
markus@x4 linux % time git pull
Already up-to-date.
git pull 7.84s user 0.26s system 92% cpu 8.743 total
git version 1.7.12 is much quicker:
markus@x4 linux % time git pull
Already up-to-date.
git pull 0.10s user 0.02s
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 04:14:54PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
with current trunk I get the following on an up-to-date Linux tree:
markus@x4 linux % time git pull
Already up-to-date.
git pull 7.84s user 0.26s system 92% cpu 8.743 total
git version 1.7.12 is much quicker:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 04:14:54PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
with current trunk I get the following on an up-to-date Linux tree:
markus@x4 linux % time git pull
Already up-to-date.
git pull 7.84s user 0.26s system 92% cpu 8.743 total
git version
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 04:14:54PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
with current trunk I get the following on an up-to-date Linux tree:
markus@x4 linux % time git pull
Already up-to-date.
git pull 7.84s user 0.26s system 92% cpu 8.743 total
git version
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 04:14:54PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
with current trunk I get the following on an up-to-date Linux tree:
markus@x4 linux % time git pull
Already up-to-date.
git pull 7.84s user 0.26s system 92% cpu 8.743 total
git version
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 04:14:54PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
with current trunk I get the following on an up-to-date Linux tree:
markus@x4 linux % time git pull
Already up-to-date.
git pull 7.84s user
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 04:14:54PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
with current trunk I get the following on an up-to-date Linux tree:
markus@x4 linux % time git pull
11 matches
Mail list logo
