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=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI 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 648561F424 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 15:26:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756431AbeDZP0u (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2018 11:26:50 -0400 Received: from mail-ot0-f169.google.com ([74.125.82.169]:35001 "EHLO mail-ot0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754556AbeDZP0t (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2018 11:26:49 -0400 Received: by mail-ot0-f169.google.com with SMTP id h8-v6so26158671otb.2 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 08:26:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2Q2LxqK9yKzIkGvNW9Iz2nnW5foPNkFs0TeAuGgr+N4=; b=sgbmX53QogKmud6bjFtO0LUwDOFhU5kEKZvQa6fVGfrEL0Nfkqx45qodL4HgYg8Y9r 2XrJyRPS9VDWprf1ij8qr4pjV+Zu6Gu7zIvH0JO8Q5ToAFBtVIYq472oiEgYgMc12Uw3 xbS3e1Db1PWw+menviJIQfUIA1CfAEPDcOLjXQ4Y+9iTNlXza9UxxOeZoqE8sWGhg4NN CUgnC8LdLyn+GMp4QIs+JMsofH74ZM1kD4mnDdYkIsCKLdXSMMAJRjEe9qA7aQ890TiG fJGtL5Dwu4IchhBWBnyMTZxF1c0aESRdxYA/LjxuQ2QtVKLpPqLSYoRRGySmRu+iiA9E pDUg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2Q2LxqK9yKzIkGvNW9Iz2nnW5foPNkFs0TeAuGgr+N4=; b=Sh7XyH8g5KaUK8Ki8cn/wTH+mJK0UMfwGyUj4H2n1PO7dXct3CecRT+H3hcBtnPXQ2 7SkJ/13WGRFxNg9hoaMs8z9/TtZ3ooeLunujlRtmrA439vCo1/HVlmP/KQ9hU2yJtRoI l/mBaDyqx4AAKmFcoQYaawiyXwDFu4xX8Uyu4q/psV6CpeRazSX4sASNJjs6ArbVymQB YOhT08Aru02c2U2PC+V3VQf7GFODfZwnmFREbzv6DUZ5Df5BPCwwyYOE+77U+w8sZ6Lg YpEt7Y6vU0camiuRxrilldpA3f5i93qpg2X2PfYmW1tVHTBbXkwLoDEU7N/PTifDw2pF qXRQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBhp/NJqUi12kVCcKLnqXqRrBckjTt5eBIZ7iPf1TxFFFdI75DQ 18erqiLjqoKx6hafjANUicbK79VXq6UFcL1aMDQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZrYBfkGO2GUFd/F9Bo5phfAAg7dKjDcUMf+LvIT3jPIenwSeZo4H4mACBPyAYPnBXFdrvm6sFqXfzCnQxvV0N8= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:1d92:: with SMTP id y18-v6mr9023798otd.304.1524756408774; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 08:26:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.74.198.152 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 08:26:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Duy Nguyen Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:26:18 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2018, #03; Wed, 25) To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Git Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > * nd/pack-objects-pack-struct (2018-04-16) 15 commits > ... > > "git pack-objects" needs to allocate tons of "struct object_entry" > while doing its work, and shrinking its size helps the performance > quite a bit. > > What's the doneness of this thing? The interdiff since previous > rounds looked reasonable, but I didn't see this round otherwise > scrutinized by reviewers. The numbers given in the commit near the > tip do look impressive, though ;-) I think it's ok to move it to next, though I'd prefer to move it to master just right after a release so it gets tested for a whole release cycle. This also gives Jeff a chance to check it after he's back (if he wants to). > * nd/repack-keep-pack (2018-04-16) 7 commits > ... > > "git gc" in a large repository takes a lot of time as it considers > to repack all objects into one pack by default. The command has > been taught to pretend as if the largest existing packfile is > marked with ".keep" so that it is left untouched while objects in > other packs and loose ones are repacked. > > What's the doneness of this thing? The interdiff since the earlier > one looked reasonable, but I didn't see this round otherwise > scrutinized by reviewers. This one should be safer than the previous one. I think it's ok to move to next. Anyway I'll re-read these two series this weekend to see if I could spot anything new. -- Duy