On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 02:28:32PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> > ... But two is that I've
> > wondered if we can do even better with a most-recently-used cache
> > instead of the last_pack_found hack. So I'm trying to implement and
> > measur
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> ... But two is that I've
> wondered if we can do even better with a most-recently-used cache
> instead of the last_pack_found hack. So I'm trying to implement and
> measure that (both for this loop, and to see if it does better in
> find_pack_ent
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 02:38:28PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > I got side-tracked by adding a t/perf test to show off the improvement.
> > It's rather tricky to get right and takes a long time to run. I _think_
> > I have it now, but am waiting for results. :)
>
> Wel
Jeff King writes:
> I got side-tracked by adding a t/perf test to show off the improvement.
> It's rather tricky to get right and takes a long time to run. I _think_
> I have it now, but am waiting for results. :)
Well, then I'd stop here and wait for the reroll to requeue.
Thanks.
--
To unsub
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 01:38:47PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> >> I do not mind too much about having to check two bools twice. But
> >> given that the reason why I was confused was because I didn't see
> >> why we need to pass the two "return 0" conditions at least onc
Jeff King writes:
>> I do not mind too much about having to check two bools twice. But
>> given that the reason why I was confused was because I didn't see
>> why we need to pass the two "return 0" conditions at least once
>> before we decide that we do not need the "return 0" thing at all,
>> a
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 02:52:24PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > if (!*found_pack) {
> > ... first find! fill in found pack, etc ...
> > }
> > if (exclude)
> > return 1;
> > if (incremental)
> > return 0;
> > if (!ignore_packed_keep && !local)
> >
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 12:56:23PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > This function loops through each existing packfile, looking
> > for the object. When we find it, we mark the pack/offset
> > combo for later use. However, we can't just return "yes, we
> > want it" at that point. If --honor-pack-k
Jeff King writes:
> if (!*found_pack) {
> ... first find! fill in found pack, etc ...
> }
> if (exclude)
> return 1;
> if (incremental)
> return 0;
> if (!ignore_packed_keep && !local)
> break; /* effectively return 1, but I think the break is more clear */
> if
Jeff King writes:
> When pack-objects collects the list of objects to pack
> (either from stdin, or via its internal rev-list), it
> filters each one through want_object_in_pack().
>
> This function loops through each existing packfile, looking
> for the object. When we find it, we mark the pack/
When pack-objects collects the list of objects to pack
(either from stdin, or via its internal rev-list), it
filters each one through want_object_in_pack().
This function loops through each existing packfile, looking
for the object. When we find it, we mark the pack/offset
combo for later use. How
11 matches
Mail list logo
