Re: [PATCH 1/2] t/perf: time rev-list with UNINTERESTING commits

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:32:12PM +0100, Thomas Rast wrote: > > This is bad to be touching the repo and assuming it is non-bare. For > > some reason I assumed that the perf suite made a copy of the repo, but > > it doesn't. If you point to a bare repo via GIT_PERF_REPO, this part of > > the test

Re: [PATCH 1/2] t/perf: time rev-list with UNINTERESTING commits

Jeff King writes: > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 04:31:01PM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > >> diff --git a/t/perf/p0001-rev-list.sh b/t/perf/p0001-rev-list.sh >> index 4f71a63..b7258a7 100755 >> --- a/t/perf/p0001-rev-list.sh >> +++ b/t/perf/p0001-rev-list.sh >> @@ -14,4 +14,21 @@ test_perf 'rev-list --all

Re: [PATCH 1/2] t/perf: time rev-list with UNINTERESTING commits

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 04:31:01PM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > diff --git a/t/perf/p0001-rev-list.sh b/t/perf/p0001-rev-list.sh > index 4f71a63..b7258a7 100755 > --- a/t/perf/p0001-rev-list.sh > +++ b/t/perf/p0001-rev-list.sh > @@ -14,4 +14,21 @@ test_perf 'rev-list --all --objects' ' > git re

[PATCH 1/2] t/perf: time rev-list with UNINTERESTING commits

We time a straight "rev-list --all" and its "--object" counterpart, both going all the way to the root. However, we do not time a partial history walk. This patch adds an extreme case: a walk over a very small slice of history, but with a very large set of UNINTERESTING tips. This is similar to the