Hi Junio, On Fri, 30 Mar 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes: > > > What would be a *really* good strategy is: "Oh, there is a problem! Let's > > acknowledge it and try to come up with a solution rather than a > > work-around". > > > > EXPENSIVE_ON_WINDOWS is a symptom. Not a solution. > > Yes, it is a workaround. Making shell faster on windows would of > course be one possible solution to make t/t*.sh scripts go faster > ;-) Or update parts of t/t*.sh so that the equivalent test coverage > can be kept while running making them go faster on Windows. What makes you think that I did not try my hardest for around 812 hours in total so far to make the shell faster? Ciao, Dscho P.S.: I do not have the actual number of hours I spent on both MSYS2's runtime and BusyBox and Git to find *some* way to make it faster, as my time-keeping is organized in a different way that makes it hard to query the overall number. But I can state with confidence that it is easily in the 200-300 hour range, if not beyond that. It is very frustrating to spend that much time with only little gains here and there (and BusyBox-w32 is simply not robust enough yet, apart from also not showing a significant improvement in performance). Please do not make this experience even more frustrating. Thanks.
