* I made a flame graph renderer for git's trace2 output @ 2019-05-10 15:09 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 2019-05-10 16:38 ` Derrick Stolee 2019-05-10 21:03 ` Jeff King 0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason @ 2019-05-10 15:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Git Mailing List Cc: Derrick Stolee, Jeff Hostetler, Jeff King, Junio C Hamano, Josh Steadmon, Johannes Schindelin Here's a flamegraph of where git's test suite spends its time on my box: https://vm.nix.is/~avar/noindex/git-tests.svg I hacked up a script for this today to plot trace2 production data, as noted there it's at: https://github.com/avar/FlameGraph/tree/stackcollapse-git-tr2-event What are flamegraphs? See http://www.brendangregg.com/flamegraphs.html As noted in TODOs in the script there's various stuff I'd like to do better, and this also shows how we need a lot more trace regions to get granular data. But it's already quite cool, and I'll keep improving it. I'll submit a PR to Brendan's parent repo once I'm happy enough with it, I figure it makes more sense there than in git.git, but maybe we'd eventually want to teach the test suite to optionally use something like this. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: I made a flame graph renderer for git's trace2 output 2019-05-10 15:09 I made a flame graph renderer for git's trace2 output Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason @ 2019-05-10 16:38 ` Derrick Stolee 2019-05-10 17:00 ` SZEDER Gábor 2019-05-10 21:03 ` Jeff King 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Derrick Stolee @ 2019-05-10 16:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, Git Mailing List Cc: Jeff Hostetler, Jeff King, Junio C Hamano, Josh Steadmon, Johannes Schindelin On 5/10/2019 11:09 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > Here's a flamegraph of where git's test suite spends its time on my box: > https://vm.nix.is/~avar/noindex/git-tests.svg > > I hacked up a script for this today to plot trace2 production data, as > noted there it's at: > https://github.com/avar/FlameGraph/tree/stackcollapse-git-tr2-event > > What are flamegraphs? See http://www.brendangregg.com/flamegraphs.html > > As noted in TODOs in the script there's various stuff I'd like to do > better, and this also shows how we need a lot more trace regions to get > granular data. > > But it's already quite cool, and I'll keep improving it. I'll submit a > PR to Brendan's parent repo once I'm happy enough with it, I figure it > makes more sense there than in git.git, but maybe we'd eventually want > to teach the test suite to optionally use something like this. This is a neat idea. Thanks! For anyone else giving this a try, here are the steps I took to create my own [1], much smaller test: # run some tests export GIT_TR2_EVENT=~/git-tr2-event.txt git fetch --all git gc git push # get the FlameGraph repo git clone https://github.com/avar/FlameGraph.git cd FlameGraph ( # Get the proper perl packages, if you don't have them sudo apt install cpanminus sudo cpanm install JSON::XS ) ./stackcollapse-git-tr2-event.pl ~/git-tr2-event.txt | ./flamegraph.pl >git-test.svg [1] https://github.com/derrickstolee/FlameGraph/blob/git-test/git-test.svg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: I made a flame graph renderer for git's trace2 output 2019-05-10 16:38 ` Derrick Stolee @ 2019-05-10 17:00 ` SZEDER Gábor 2019-05-20 18:49 ` Jeff Hostetler 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: SZEDER Gábor @ 2019-05-10 17:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Derrick Stolee, Jeff Hostetler Cc: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, Git Mailing List, Jeff King, Junio C Hamano, Josh Steadmon, Johannes Schindelin On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 12:38:52PM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote: > export GIT_TR2_EVENT=~/git-tr2-event.txt Hrm, better late than never, or at least better late than after it's in a release... Why does an environment variable that is supposed to be set by users have this "TR2" abbreviation in its prefix? What exactly, if anything, did we gain by omitting "ACE" and not calling it "GIT_TRACE2_..."? Ken Thompson springs to mind, who (allegedly?) later regretted spelling creat()/O_CREAT without the 'e'... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: I made a flame graph renderer for git's trace2 output 2019-05-10 17:00 ` SZEDER Gábor @ 2019-05-20 18:49 ` Jeff Hostetler 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Jeff Hostetler @ 2019-05-20 18:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: SZEDER Gábor, Derrick Stolee Cc: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, Git Mailing List, Jeff King, Junio C Hamano, Josh Steadmon, Johannes Schindelin On 5/10/2019 1:00 PM, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 12:38:52PM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote: >> export GIT_TR2_EVENT=~/git-tr2-event.txt > > Hrm, better late than never, or at least better late than after it's > in a release... > > Why does an environment variable that is supposed to be set by users > have this "TR2" abbreviation in its prefix? What exactly, if > anything, did we gain by omitting "ACE" and not calling it > "GIT_TRACE2_..."? > > Ken Thompson springs to mind, who (allegedly?) later regretted > spelling creat()/O_CREAT without the 'e'... > For closure here on this thread. I chose TR2 rather than TRACE2 somewhat at random for convenience during testing. Changing is fine as you suggest in your other patch series. Thanks Jeff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: I made a flame graph renderer for git's trace2 output 2019-05-10 15:09 I made a flame graph renderer for git's trace2 output Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 2019-05-10 16:38 ` Derrick Stolee @ 2019-05-10 21:03 ` Jeff King 2019-05-10 21:57 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Jeff King @ 2019-05-10 21:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason Cc: Git Mailing List, Derrick Stolee, Jeff Hostetler, Junio C Hamano, Josh Steadmon, Johannes Schindelin On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 05:09:58PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > As noted in TODOs in the script there's various stuff I'd like to do > better, and this also shows how we need a lot more trace regions to get > granular data. Hmm. My gut reaction was: doesn't "perf record -g make test" already give us that granular data? I know "perf" isn't available everywhere, but the idea of the FlameGraph repo is that it takes input from a lot of sources (though I don't know if it supports any Windows-specific formats yet, which is presumably a point of interesting to trace-2 authors). But having generated such a flamegraph, it's not all that helpful. It mainly tells us that we spend a lot of time on fork/exec. Which is no surprise, since the test suite is geared not towards heavy workloads, but lots of tiny functionality tests. TBH, I'm not sure that flame-graphing the test suite is going to be all that useful in the long run. It's going to be heavily weighted by the types of things the test suite does. Flamegraphs are good for understanding where your time is going for a particular workload, but the workload of the test suite is not that interesting. And once you do have a particular workload of interest that you can replay, then I think the granular "perf" results really can be helpful. I think the trace2 flamegraph would be most useful if you were collecting across a broad spectrum of workloads done by a user. You _can_ do that with perf or similar tools, but it can be a bit awkward. I do wonder how painful it would be to alias "git" to "perf record git" for a day or something. -Peff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: I made a flame graph renderer for git's trace2 output 2019-05-10 21:03 ` Jeff King @ 2019-05-10 21:57 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 2019-05-20 18:22 ` Jeff Hostetler 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason @ 2019-05-10 21:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff King Cc: Git Mailing List, Derrick Stolee, Jeff Hostetler, Junio C Hamano, Josh Steadmon, Johannes Schindelin On Fri, May 10 2019, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 05:09:58PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> As noted in TODOs in the script there's various stuff I'd like to do >> better, and this also shows how we need a lot more trace regions to get >> granular data. > > Hmm. My gut reaction was: doesn't "perf record -g make test" already > give us that granular data? I know "perf" isn't available everywhere, > but the idea of the FlameGraph repo is that it takes input from a lot of > sources (though I don't know if it supports any Windows-specific formats > yet, which is presumably a point of interesting to trace-2 authors). > > But having generated such a flamegraph, it's not all that helpful. It > mainly tells us that we spend a lot of time on fork/exec. Which is no > surprise, since the test suite is geared not towards heavy workloads, > but lots of tiny functionality tests. > > TBH, I'm not sure that flame-graphing the test suite is going to be all > that useful in the long run. It's going to be heavily weighted by the > types of things the test suite does. Flamegraphs are good for > understanding where your time is going for a particular workload, but > the workload of the test suite is not that interesting. > > And once you do have a particular workload of interest that you can > replay, then I think the granular "perf" results really can be helpful. > > I think the trace2 flamegraph would be most useful if you were > collecting across a broad spectrum of workloads done by a user. You > _can_ do that with perf or similar tools, but it can be a bit awkward. > I do wonder how painful it would be to alias "git" to "perf record git" > for a day or something. Yeah I should have mentioned that I'm mainly linking to the test suite rendering as a demo. My actual use-case for this is to see what production nodes are spending their time on, similar to what Microsoft is doing with their use of this facility. The test suite serves as a really good test-case for the output, and to stress-test my aggregation script, since we're pretty much guaranteed to run all our commands, and cover a lot of unusual cases. It also shows that we've got a long way to go in improving the trace2 facility, i.e. adding region enter/leave for some of the things we spend the most time on. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: I made a flame graph renderer for git's trace2 output 2019-05-10 21:57 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason @ 2019-05-20 18:22 ` Jeff Hostetler 2019-05-21 14:19 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Jeff Hostetler @ 2019-05-20 18:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, Jeff King Cc: Git Mailing List, Derrick Stolee, Junio C Hamano, Josh Steadmon, Johannes Schindelin On 5/10/2019 5:57 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > On Fri, May 10 2019, Jeff King wrote: > >> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 05:09:58PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> >>> As noted in TODOs in the script there's various stuff I'd like to do >>> better, and this also shows how we need a lot more trace regions to get >>> granular data. >> >> Hmm. My gut reaction was: doesn't "perf record -g make test" already >> give us that granular data? I know "perf" isn't available everywhere, >> but the idea of the FlameGraph repo is that it takes input from a lot of >> sources (though I don't know if it supports any Windows-specific formats >> yet, which is presumably a point of interesting to trace-2 authors). >> >> But having generated such a flamegraph, it's not all that helpful. It >> mainly tells us that we spend a lot of time on fork/exec. Which is no >> surprise, since the test suite is geared not towards heavy workloads, >> but lots of tiny functionality tests. >> >> TBH, I'm not sure that flame-graphing the test suite is going to be all >> that useful in the long run. It's going to be heavily weighted by the >> types of things the test suite does. Flamegraphs are good for >> understanding where your time is going for a particular workload, but >> the workload of the test suite is not that interesting. >> >> And once you do have a particular workload of interest that you can >> replay, then I think the granular "perf" results really can be helpful. >> >> I think the trace2 flamegraph would be most useful if you were >> collecting across a broad spectrum of workloads done by a user. You >> _can_ do that with perf or similar tools, but it can be a bit awkward. >> I do wonder how painful it would be to alias "git" to "perf record git" >> for a day or something. > > Yeah I should have mentioned that I'm mainly linking to the test suite > rendering as a demo. > > My actual use-case for this is to see what production nodes are spending > their time on, similar to what Microsoft is doing with their use of this > facility. > > The test suite serves as a really good test-case for the output, and to > stress-test my aggregation script, since we're pretty much guaranteed to > run all our commands, and cover a lot of unusual cases. > > It also shows that we've got a long way to go in improving the trace2 > facility, i.e. adding region enter/leave for some of the things we spend > the most time on. > Very nice! Yes, there is more work to do to add more regions to get more granular data for interesting/problematic things. My primary goal in this phase has been to get the basic machinery in place and be vetted with some universally interesting regions, such as reading/writing the index and the phases of status. Going forward, we can trivially (permanently) add new regions as we want. I tend to use temporary "experimental" regions during my perf investigations so that I don't clutter up the mainline source with uninteresting noise. WRT the TODO's in your script: [] I don't think data events will be useful for your usage. The data values are orthogonal to the time values. [] I would add the child_start/_exit events to the stack. This will give you the names of non-builtin/shell commands and hooks. The various "child_class" and "use_shell" and "hook_name" fields will help you avoid duplicate stack frames (which you'll get for builtin commands). Jeff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: I made a flame graph renderer for git's trace2 output 2019-05-20 18:22 ` Jeff Hostetler @ 2019-05-21 14:19 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 2019-05-21 20:46 ` Jeff Hostetler 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason @ 2019-05-21 14:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff Hostetler Cc: Jeff King, Git Mailing List, Derrick Stolee, Junio C Hamano, Josh Steadmon, Johannes Schindelin On Mon, May 20 2019, Jeff Hostetler wrote: > On 5/10/2019 5:57 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 10 2019, Jeff King wrote: >> >>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 05:09:58PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >>> >>>> As noted in TODOs in the script there's various stuff I'd like to do >>>> better, and this also shows how we need a lot more trace regions to get >>>> granular data. >>> >>> Hmm. My gut reaction was: doesn't "perf record -g make test" already >>> give us that granular data? I know "perf" isn't available everywhere, >>> but the idea of the FlameGraph repo is that it takes input from a lot of >>> sources (though I don't know if it supports any Windows-specific formats >>> yet, which is presumably a point of interesting to trace-2 authors). >>> >>> But having generated such a flamegraph, it's not all that helpful. It >>> mainly tells us that we spend a lot of time on fork/exec. Which is no >>> surprise, since the test suite is geared not towards heavy workloads, >>> but lots of tiny functionality tests. >>> >>> TBH, I'm not sure that flame-graphing the test suite is going to be all >>> that useful in the long run. It's going to be heavily weighted by the >>> types of things the test suite does. Flamegraphs are good for >>> understanding where your time is going for a particular workload, but >>> the workload of the test suite is not that interesting. >>> >>> And once you do have a particular workload of interest that you can >>> replay, then I think the granular "perf" results really can be helpful. >>> >>> I think the trace2 flamegraph would be most useful if you were >>> collecting across a broad spectrum of workloads done by a user. You >>> _can_ do that with perf or similar tools, but it can be a bit awkward. >>> I do wonder how painful it would be to alias "git" to "perf record git" >>> for a day or something. >> >> Yeah I should have mentioned that I'm mainly linking to the test suite >> rendering as a demo. >> >> My actual use-case for this is to see what production nodes are spending >> their time on, similar to what Microsoft is doing with their use of this >> facility. >> >> The test suite serves as a really good test-case for the output, and to >> stress-test my aggregation script, since we're pretty much guaranteed to >> run all our commands, and cover a lot of unusual cases. >> >> It also shows that we've got a long way to go in improving the trace2 >> facility, i.e. adding region enter/leave for some of the things we spend >> the most time on. >> > > Very nice! > > Yes, there is more work to do to add more regions to get more > granular data for interesting/problematic things. My primary > goal in this phase has been to get the basic machinery in place > and be vetted with some universally interesting regions, such as > reading/writing the index and the phases of status. > > Going forward, we can trivially (permanently) add new regions as we > want. I tend to use temporary "experimental" regions during my perf > investigations so that I don't clutter up the mainline source with > uninteresting noise. Indeed, a lot more regions are needed. > WRT the TODO's in your script: > > [] I don't think data events will be useful for your usage. The data > values are orthogonal to the time values. I haven't done this, so I'm not asserting that it's useful, but from some brief grepping a few datapoints are overwhelmingly common, and can be faked up into regions of sorts for the purposes of a flamegraph. E.g. "git checkout" will reliably have read/version early on, and then write/version, in that case mostly/entirely redundant to the do_{read,write}_index region, but in general I think we'll be able to loosely plot data points say as "given the median runtime, here's the median % of time into the command we first encounter this data point". > [] I would add the child_start/_exit events to the stack. This will > give you the names of non-builtin/shell commands and hooks. The > various "child_class" and "use_shell" and "hook_name" fields will help > you avoid duplicate stack frames (which you'll get for builtin > commands). Yeah that's very useful. Any reason not to do something like this: diff --git a/git.c b/git.c index 1bf9c94550..6c926ae013 100644 --- a/git.c +++ b/git.c @@ -698 +698 @@ static void execv_dashed_external(const char **argv) - trace2_cmd_name("_run_dashed_"); + trace2_cmd_name(is_builtin(argv[0]) ? argv[0] : "_run_dashed_"); I haven't tested, but we e.g. report 'git-submodule' as just '_run_dashed_', seems we could do better... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: I made a flame graph renderer for git's trace2 output 2019-05-21 14:19 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason @ 2019-05-21 20:46 ` Jeff Hostetler 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Jeff Hostetler @ 2019-05-21 20:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason Cc: Jeff King, Git Mailing List, Derrick Stolee, Junio C Hamano, Josh Steadmon, Johannes Schindelin On 5/21/2019 10:19 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > On Mon, May 20 2019, Jeff Hostetler wrote: > >> On 5/10/2019 5:57 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, May 10 2019, Jeff King wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 05:09:58PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >>>> >>>>> As noted in TODOs in the script there's various stuff I'd like to do >>>>> better, and this also shows how we need a lot more trace regions to get >>>>> granular data. >>>> >>>> Hmm. My gut reaction was: doesn't "perf record -g make test" already >>>> give us that granular data? I know "perf" isn't available everywhere, >>>> but the idea of the FlameGraph repo is that it takes input from a lot of >>>> sources (though I don't know if it supports any Windows-specific formats >>>> yet, which is presumably a point of interesting to trace-2 authors). >>>> >>>> But having generated such a flamegraph, it's not all that helpful. It >>>> mainly tells us that we spend a lot of time on fork/exec. Which is no >>>> surprise, since the test suite is geared not towards heavy workloads, >>>> but lots of tiny functionality tests. >>>> >>>> TBH, I'm not sure that flame-graphing the test suite is going to be all >>>> that useful in the long run. It's going to be heavily weighted by the >>>> types of things the test suite does. Flamegraphs are good for >>>> understanding where your time is going for a particular workload, but >>>> the workload of the test suite is not that interesting. >>>> >>>> And once you do have a particular workload of interest that you can >>>> replay, then I think the granular "perf" results really can be helpful. >>>> >>>> I think the trace2 flamegraph would be most useful if you were >>>> collecting across a broad spectrum of workloads done by a user. You >>>> _can_ do that with perf or similar tools, but it can be a bit awkward. >>>> I do wonder how painful it would be to alias "git" to "perf record git" >>>> for a day or something. >>> >>> Yeah I should have mentioned that I'm mainly linking to the test suite >>> rendering as a demo. >>> >>> My actual use-case for this is to see what production nodes are spending >>> their time on, similar to what Microsoft is doing with their use of this >>> facility. >>> >>> The test suite serves as a really good test-case for the output, and to >>> stress-test my aggregation script, since we're pretty much guaranteed to >>> run all our commands, and cover a lot of unusual cases. >>> >>> It also shows that we've got a long way to go in improving the trace2 >>> facility, i.e. adding region enter/leave for some of the things we spend >>> the most time on. >>> >> >> Very nice! >> >> Yes, there is more work to do to add more regions to get more >> granular data for interesting/problematic things. My primary >> goal in this phase has been to get the basic machinery in place >> and be vetted with some universally interesting regions, such as >> reading/writing the index and the phases of status. >> >> Going forward, we can trivially (permanently) add new regions as we >> want. I tend to use temporary "experimental" regions during my perf >> investigations so that I don't clutter up the mainline source with >> uninteresting noise. > > Indeed, a lot more regions are needed. > >> WRT the TODO's in your script: >> >> [] I don't think data events will be useful for your usage. The data >> values are orthogonal to the time values. > > I haven't done this, so I'm not asserting that it's useful, but from > some brief grepping a few datapoints are overwhelmingly common, and can > be faked up into regions of sorts for the purposes of a flamegraph. > > E.g. "git checkout" will reliably have read/version early on, and then > write/version, in that case mostly/entirely redundant to the > do_{read,write}_index region, but in general I think we'll be able to > loosely plot data points say as "given the median runtime, here's the > median % of time into the command we first encounter this data point". Interesting. I was thinking of just the data value itself, rather than the time when it was emitted. > >> [] I would add the child_start/_exit events to the stack. This will >> give you the names of non-builtin/shell commands and hooks. The >> various "child_class" and "use_shell" and "hook_name" fields will help >> you avoid duplicate stack frames (which you'll get for builtin >> commands). > > Yeah that's very useful. Any reason not to do something like this: > > diff --git a/git.c b/git.c > index 1bf9c94550..6c926ae013 100644 > --- a/git.c > +++ b/git.c > @@ -698 +698 @@ static void execv_dashed_external(const char **argv) > - trace2_cmd_name("_run_dashed_"); > + trace2_cmd_name(is_builtin(argv[0]) ? argv[0] : "_run_dashed_"); > > I haven't tested, but we e.g. report 'git-submodule' as just > '_run_dashed_', seems we could do better... > The whole dispatch logic is a bit of a confusing mess between implicit dashed commands, the various types of alias expansion, fallback, and etc, so I'm a little cautious here. What I'm reporting here is that the current process is not directly doing anything -- just spawning (or trying to spawn) a dashed command. If that dashed command is bogus, we may fallback and try an alias expansion (which is also spawned even if it is a builtin command). For dashed commands that resolve to builtin commands, we will get trace2 data from the child process itself, so we can ignore the data for the _run_dashed_ process completely (when we are OK with ignoring process spawning overhead). For dashed commands that are shell scripts, we won't get any trace2 data for the script itself, but we will get events for any git commands that the script runs. These are somewhat confusingly attributed to the _run_dashed_ process. It might be more useful to emit something like: "%s:%s, "_run_dashed_", cmd.args.argv[0] but I'm not sure I want to suggest that yet. You might try something like this: $ git config --local --add alias.xxx "log --oneline" $ export GIT_TR2_PERF=1 $ ./git --exec-path=. xxx $ ./git --exec-path=. submodule status and see how the different processes are started. Jeff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-05-21 20:46 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2019-05-10 15:09 I made a flame graph renderer for git's trace2 output Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 2019-05-10 16:38 ` Derrick Stolee 2019-05-10 17:00 ` SZEDER Gábor 2019-05-20 18:49 ` Jeff Hostetler 2019-05-10 21:03 ` Jeff King 2019-05-10 21:57 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 2019-05-20 18:22 ` Jeff Hostetler 2019-05-21 14:19 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 2019-05-21 20:46 ` Jeff Hostetler
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).