On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 09:30:20PM +0200, erik elfström wrote:
>>
>> Yes, that is the problem. A dry run will spot this particular performance
>> issue but maybe we lose some value as a general performance test if
>> we only do "half" the clean?
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 09:30:20PM +0200, erik elfström wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> >
> > If I understand correctly, the reason that you need per-run setup is
> > that your "git clean" command actually cleans things, and you need to
> > restore the original state
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Jeff King wrote:
>
> If I understand correctly, the reason that you need per-run setup is
> that your "git clean" command actually cleans things, and you need to
> restore the original state for each time-trial. Can you instead use "git
> clean -n" to do a dry-run
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 08:21:37PM +0200, erik elfström wrote:
> Ok, thanks for looking into this.
>
> I have no well founded opinions on the implementation but I do
> think the performance tests would be more meaningful if the
> setup/cleanup code could be removed from the timed section.
> If th
erik elfström writes:
> Ok, thanks for looking into this.
>
> I have no well founded opinions on the implementation but I do
> think the performance tests would be more meaningful if the
> setup/cleanup code could be removed from the timed section.
> If the community agrees on an implementation I
Ok, thanks for looking into this.
I have no well founded opinions on the implementation but I do
think the performance tests would be more meaningful if the
setup/cleanup code could be removed from the timed section.
If the community agrees on an implementation I would be happy
to convert the new
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Erik Elfström writes:
>
>> Known Problems:
>> * Unsure about the setup.c:read_gitfile refactor, feels a bit
>> messy?
>
> The interface indeed feels somewhat messy. I suspect that a better
> interface might be more like setup_git_directo
On 04/18, Erik Elfström wrote:
> * Still have issues in the performance tests, see comments
> from Thomas Gummerer on v2
I've looked at the "modern" style tests again, and I don't the code
churn is worth it just for using them for the performance tests. If
anyone wants to take a look at the cod
Erik Elfström writes:
> Known Problems:
> * Unsure about the setup.c:read_gitfile refactor, feels a bit
> messy?
The interface indeed feels somewhat messy. I suspect that a better
interface might be more like setup_git_directory_gently() that is a
gentler version of setup_git_directory(). Th
9 matches
Mail list logo
