From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D8021F7D2 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2017 08:23:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751266AbdFDIXc (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Jun 2017 04:23:32 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:34515 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751171AbdFDIXb (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Jun 2017 04:23:31 -0400 Received: (qmail 15149 invoked by uid 109); 4 Jun 2017 08:23:30 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Sun, 04 Jun 2017 08:23:30 +0000 Received: (qmail 7753 invoked by uid 111); 4 Jun 2017 08:24:10 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Sun, 04 Jun 2017 04:24:10 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 04 Jun 2017 04:23:29 -0400 Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 04:23:29 -0400 From: Jeff King To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: Christian Couder , Junio C Hamano , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: work around the tested repo having an index.lock Message-ID: <20170604082328.wdjb5yvx24w7biwk@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20170602103330.25663-1-avarab@gmail.com> <20170602184506.x2inwswmcwafyvfy@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 09:55:15AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > Is a local clone really much slower these days? Wouldn't it is use > > hard links too? > > By the way the many properties that are preserved might not be worth > > preserving as they could make results depend a lot on the current > > state of the original repo. > > AFAICT from some quick testing it'll hardlink the objects/ dir, so > e.g. you preserve the loose objects. Making the results depend on the > state of the original repo is a feature, but perhaps it should be opt > in. It's very useful to be able to take a repo that's accrued e.g. a > month's worth of refs & loose objects and test that v.s. a fresh > clone. > > But there are other things that ever a hardlink local clone doesn't > preserve which might be worth preserving... Yes. Reflogs are one example. They aren't copied at all as part of a clone, but they impact pruning and repacking. -Peff