On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 06:15:21PM -0500, Alberto Accomazzi wrote:
...
> Well, not to be pedantic here, but how do we measure performance of a
> feature that isn't available yet?
Essentially the same feature performance-wise was in rsync 2.3.2 and
earlier, when there is an include list that has no wildcards and ends in
exclude '*'. That's what I'm asking people to measure on some large set of
their files where they think it might make a difference. The simplest way
to compare is to add one wildcard somewhere to the include list. Compare
the difference in total elapsed time and possibly CPU time. Note that when
the optimization kicks in, the parent directories are not required to be
explicitly listed in the include list but when the optimization is off the
parent directories or --include '*/' are required.
> I guess my point is that Tridge's
> objection to the optimization does not apply here, since this is
> simply a new option rather than a rewrite of code that works already.
It's true that his main objection (the change in the parent directory
include requirement with and without the optimization) does not apply, but
it's still more code to maintain and makes the code more complicated
so it needs proper justification.
> And the new option is there to make the program more user-friendly
> rather than increasing performance.
Different people expressed an interest in it for both reasons.
- Dave Dykstra
