From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: What's in git.git (stable) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 01:34:50 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: References: <7v8x27iui1.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vd4r24ox6.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vir0o44mt.fsf_-_@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vtzk7xqg3.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7v3arrxd7q.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Jakub Narebski , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 18 02:35:39 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JQuuv-0001dw-Np for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:35:38 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751538AbYBRBfD (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:35:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751483AbYBRBfB (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:35:01 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:45234 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751317AbYBRBfB (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:35:01 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 18 Feb 2008 01:34:59 -0000 Received: from host86-138-198-40.range86-138.btcentralplus.com (EHLO racer.home) [86.138.198.40] by mail.gmx.net (mp027) with SMTP; 18 Feb 2008 02:34:59 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18BLV0AvkUBYSWJsHifb+eqDy5hBPkG3ojUCRuh/K c/v3NqmvR88rrp X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <7v3arrxd7q.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (LSU 882 2007-12-20) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > >> The more fundamental improvement was along the lines of what I suggested > >> soon after Kristian's initial round was posted, but what the current > >> code does is not wrong nor hack. It is about a partial commit after all > >> and is not performance critical either. > > > > You mean: at this point, it is not necessary to be careful about the > > index, as the index that will be reloaded will already have the most > > recent timestamps, right? > > I do not understand the question, but if you are referring to my "not > performance critical", I meant: "A partial commit is never performance > critical". > > A partial commit is by its nature "oops, I earlier told you to git add > this and git add that but I did not mean that, eh, I do mean it but not > for this commit yet, sorry, I want to commit changes to these paths > first please and then I'll deal with the earlier added paths in later > commit perhaps.", i.e. very interactive. Its performance requirement is > unlike an automated script slurping hundreds of changes per minute > applying exactly the change it wants in each commit to the index and > making commits in rapid succession. Well, my workflow has lots of these moments. I do not even feel "oops" about it. More like "by the way, this needs committing _now_". So I guess I'll be the guinea pig for this patch, and if it is too painful, I'll just go and fix it. Ciao, Dscho