On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
size time
old aggr. 36MB 5m51
new aggr. 37MB 6m13
repack -adf 48MB 1m12
I am not clear on what these times mean. It looks like the new code is
slower _and_ bigger. Can you explain them?
That's right
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Stefan Beller stefanbel...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe we should introduce another option --pack-for-archive
which features the characteristics of the old --aggressive.
And the new --aggressive would be a tradeoff between space and
time?
Thinking further we could
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
But I think it's orthogonal to gc --aggressive improvement.
There's another reason that improving gc may be a good idea (or not).
It depends on how other git implementations handle long delta chains.
If they hate long delta
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:00:48PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 08:35:04PM +0700, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
As explained in the previous commit, current aggressive
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:50:50AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 08:35:04PM +0700, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
As explained in the previous commit, current aggressive settings
--depth=250 --window=250 could slow down repository access
Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
But I think it's orthogonal to gc --aggressive improvement.
There's another reason that improving gc may be a good idea (or not).
It depends on how other git implementations handle long
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy pclo...@gmail.com writes:
As explained in the previous commit,...
[PATCH 3/4] becomes a commit with an empty log message for some
reason. Have you tried running am -s on it?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in
the body of a message to
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:12 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy pclo...@gmail.com writes:
As explained in the previous commit,...
[PATCH 3/4] becomes a commit with an empty log message for some
reason. Have you tried running am -s on it?
am -s worked fine. am
Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:12 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy pclo...@gmail.com writes:
As explained in the previous commit,...
[PATCH 3/4] becomes a commit with an empty log message for some
reason. Have you tried
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 08:35:04PM +0700, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
As explained in the previous commit, current aggressive settings
--depth=250 --window=250 could slow down repository access
significantly. Notice that people usually work on recent history only,
we could keep recent history
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 08:35:04PM +0700, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
As explained in the previous commit, current aggressive settings
--depth=250 --window=250 could slow down repository access
significantly. Notice that people
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:50:50AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 08:35:04PM +0700, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
As explained in the previous commit, current aggressive settings
--depth=250 --window=250 could slow down repository access
significantly. Notice that people
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:00:48PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 08:35:04PM +0700, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
As explained in the previous commit, current aggressive settings
--depth=250 --window=250
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
[before]
real0m28.824s
user0m28.620s
sys 0m0.232s
[after]
real0m21.694s
user0m21.544s
sys 0m0.172s
The numbers below are completely pulled out of a hat, so we can perhaps
do even
14 matches
Mail list logo
