Maxim Nikulin <maniku...@gmail.com> writes:
> Example for #+STARTUP: overview:
>
> org-activate-links 560 0.028971085 5.173...e-05
>
> For content number of calls is 410, without special settings (all) 120,
> let me remind that it is for 10 find-file invocations. Another example
>
> org-activate-links 410 0.1384633219 0.0003377154
I repeated your benchmark on my largest working file (~14k links):
;; with patch
;; org-activate-links 400 0.0259791009 6.494...e-05
;; org-activate-links 400 0.0114822140 2.870...e-05
;; org-activate-links 400 0.0255080609 6.377...e-05
;; without patch
;; org-activate-links 400 0.0297167870 7.429...e-05
;; org-activate-links 400 0.0149334709 3.733...e-05
;; org-activate-links 400 0.0105385180 2.634...e-05
There is not much difference indeed. I guess, there was something about
my config and external packages.
> I see such variations in both cases with and without the patch, but
> these numbers are negligible in my opinion.
Your benchmark is measuring is jit-lock - there will be no reliable
result as jit-lock is timer-based.
I did more reliable version as well:
(progn
(require 'elp)
(require 'org-element)
(setq elp-function-list (list #'org-activate-links))
(elp-instrument-list nil)
(dolist (i (number-sequence 1 10))
(message "iter %d" i)
(find-file "~/Org/notes.org")
(font-lock-ensure) ;; Force fontification in all the buffer
(sit-for 1)
(kill-buffer "notes.org")
(sit-for 1))
(elp-results))
Results are not different though (time-per-single-call):
;; with patch + font-lock-ensure
;; org-activate-links 163290 9.720667509 5.953...e-05
;; org-activate-links 163290 9.8090518640 6.007...e-05
;; without patch + font-lock-ensure
;; org-activate-links 163290 9.9175657860 6.073...e-05
;; org-activate-links 163290 10.073281878 6.168...e-05
This latter case was what was happening with my config. Some package was
causing full buffer fontification.
> In my opinion, combining changes related to white spaces and meaningful
> modifications makes commits less clear, especially when reading email.
> However the following recommendation has certainly more weight:
>
> https://orgmode.org/list/87zh2hosex....@bzg.fr/ From: Bastien
>> Also, the convention in Emacs is to avoid whitespaces-only commits,
>> you need to fix whitespaces within other non-whitespaces changes in
>> a commit.
Actually, I feel confused now. I remember that message from Bastien, but
now I cannot recall what is considered "fix whitespaces". Do we use
tab-convention or space-convention?
I think I will better clear the whitespace staff in the patch before I
understand the whitespace policy more clearly. At least, the patch will
be more readable.
Best,
Ihor
