Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes: > Then please don't pick up this patch. This and patch 5 are there to convince > Jeff this is a good API, worth being introduced and not over engineered, just > solving a problem we're interested in with a minimal amount of code to side > track from the actual goal we want to pursue.
Don't worry. I did not have intention to queue index-pack and pack-objects rewrite unless the use of the new API makes them demonstratably better. The criteria for "worth being introduced" would include "not excessively heavyweight", I would think. And it was good that we have these two patches to judge if the earlier one (2-3/5) is a good thing to add in a concrete way. Perhaps the 2% slowdown might be showing the performance characteristics of your worker pool model, and Peff's suggestion to at least see (if not solve) where the overhead is coming from was a very reasonable one, I would think. -- 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.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
