Re: [PATCH v2 14/19] tree-diff: rework diff_tree interface to be sha1 based

Johannes Sixt writes: >> My reading of git-send-email is: >> >> * "$time = time - scalar $#files" prepares the initial "timestamp", >>so that running two "git send-email" back to back will give >>timestamps to the series sent out by the first invocation that >>are older than the one

Re: [PATCH v2 14/19] tree-diff: rework diff_tree interface to be sha1 based

Am 28.03.2014 19:36, schrieb Junio C Hamano: > Johannes Sixt writes: > >> Am 28.03.2014 18:06, schrieb Junio C Hamano: >>> Johannes Sixt writes: >>> Am 3/27/2014 19:48, schrieb Junio C Hamano: >> From: Kirill Smelkov >> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 20:21:46 +0400 >> ... > > B

Re: [PATCH v2 14/19] tree-diff: rework diff_tree interface to be sha1 based

Johannes Sixt writes: > Am 28.03.2014 18:06, schrieb Junio C Hamano: >> Johannes Sixt writes: >> >>> Am 3/27/2014 19:48, schrieb Junio C Hamano: > From: Kirill Smelkov > Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 20:21:46 +0400 > ... By the way, in general I do not appreciate people lying on

Re: [PATCH v2 14/19] tree-diff: rework diff_tree interface to be sha1 based

Am 28.03.2014 18:06, schrieb Junio C Hamano: > Johannes Sixt writes: > >> Am 3/27/2014 19:48, schrieb Junio C Hamano: From: Kirill Smelkov Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 20:21:46 +0400 ... >>> >>> By the way, in general I do not appreciate people lying on the Date: >>> with an in-body hea

Re: [PATCH v2 14/19] tree-diff: rework diff_tree interface to be sha1 based

Johannes Sixt writes: > Am 3/27/2014 19:48, schrieb Junio C Hamano: >>> From: Kirill Smelkov >>> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 20:21:46 +0400 >>> ... >> >> By the way, in general I do not appreciate people lying on the Date: >> with an in-body header in their patches, either in the original or >> in r

Re: [PATCH v2 14/19] tree-diff: rework diff_tree interface to be sha1 based

Am 3/27/2014 19:48, schrieb Junio C Hamano: >> From: Kirill Smelkov >> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 20:21:46 +0400 >> ... > > By the way, in general I do not appreciate people lying on the Date: > with an in-body header in their patches, either in the original or > in rerolls. format-patch is not very

Re: [PATCH v2 14/19] tree-diff: rework diff_tree interface to be sha1 based

+stefanbeller On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:48:11AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Kirill Smelkov writes: > > > (please keep author email) > > 8< > > From: Kirill Smelkov > > Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 20:21:46 +0400 > > Subject: [PATCH v3a] tree-diff: rework diff_tree interface to be sha1 b

Re: [PATCH v2 14/19] tree-diff: rework diff_tree interface to be sha1 based

Kirill Smelkov writes: > (please keep author email) > 8< > From: Kirill Smelkov > Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 20:21:46 +0400 > Subject: [PATCH v3a] tree-diff: rework diff_tree interface to be sha1 based "git am -c" will discard everything above the scissors and then start parsing the in-bo

Re: [PATCH v2 14/19] tree-diff: rework diff_tree interface to be sha1 based

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 02:34:24PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Kirill Smelkov writes: > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:46:32AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Kirill Smelkov writes: > >> > >> > What are the downsides of "__" prefix by the way? > >> > >> Aren't these names reserved for com

Re: [PATCH v2 14/19] tree-diff: rework diff_tree interface to be sha1 based

Kirill Smelkov writes: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:46:32AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Kirill Smelkov writes: >> >> > What are the downsides of "__" prefix by the way? >> >> Aren't these names reserved for compiler/runtime implementations? > > Yes, but there are precedents when people don

Re: [PATCH v2 14/19] tree-diff: rework diff_tree interface to be sha1 based

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:46:32AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Kirill Smelkov writes: > > > What are the downsides of "__" prefix by the way? > > Aren't these names reserved for compiler/runtime implementations? Yes, but there are precedents when people don't obey it widely and in practice e

Re: [PATCH v2 14/19] tree-diff: rework diff_tree interface to be sha1 based

Kirill Smelkov writes: > What are the downsides of "__" prefix by the way? Aren't these names reserved for compiler/runtime implementations? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger

Re: [PATCH v2 14/19] tree-diff: rework diff_tree interface to be sha1 based

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 02:36:22PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Kirill Smelkov writes: > > > The downside is that try_to_follow_renames(), if active, we cause > > re-reading of 2 initial trees, which was negligible based on my timings, > > That would depend on how often the codepath triggered

Re: [PATCH v2 14/19] tree-diff: rework diff_tree interface to be sha1 based

Kirill Smelkov writes: > The downside is that try_to_follow_renames(), if active, we cause > re-reading of 2 initial trees, which was negligible based on my timings, That would depend on how often the codepath triggered in your test case, but is totally understandable. It fires only when the pa

[PATCH v2 14/19] tree-diff: rework diff_tree interface to be sha1 based

In the next commit this will allow to reduce intermediate calls, when recursing into subtrees - at that stage we know only subtree sha1, and it is natural for tree walker to start from that phase. For now we do diff_tree show_path diff_tree_sha1 diff_tree