On 01/14/2014 10:50 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 04:41:20AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
>
>> That being said, we could further optimize this by not opening the files
>> at all (and make that the responsibility of do_one_ref, which we are
>> avoiding here). I am slightly worried about
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 04:41:20AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> That being said, we could further optimize this by not opening the files
> at all (and make that the responsibility of do_one_ref, which we are
> avoiding here). I am slightly worried about the open() cost of my
> solution. It's amortize
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 05:09:25PM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> It's not only racy WRT other processes. If the current git process
> would create a new reference, it wouldn't be reflected in the cache.
>
> It's true that the main ref_cache doesn't invalidate itself
> automatically either whe
Michael Haggerty writes:
> It's not only racy WRT other processes. If the current git process
> would create a new reference, it wouldn't be reflected in the cache.
>
> It's true that the main ref_cache doesn't invalidate itself
> automatically either when a new reference is created, so it's not
On 01/08/2014 12:59 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> Since 798c35f (get_sha1: warn about full or short object
> names that look like refs, 2013-05-29), a 40-hex sha1 causes
> us to call dwim_ref on the result, on the off chance that we
> have a matching ref. This can cause a noticeable slow-down
> when there
5 matches
Mail list logo
