From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_CSS,URIBL_CSS_A shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 603EF1F54E for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 19:55:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="noSQ5fGn"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232491AbiG1TzF (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:55:05 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:38324 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232813AbiG1TzB (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:55:01 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0EEC6FA00 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 12:55:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BDA5198B2E; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:55:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=Ot9q1Afo7j38 pL0m3zpRybMyxoDGXwPmt75hjJUvdtw=; b=noSQ5fGnzpJdB05PzqkVqYUJCja0 qCuo3uFxpxbzjevznIuR+pfjnn6ZMIe0v7RXKccUFElTpWSdyAU2/RcJmoHPtXNG UuJ1wtxfOGayM/sC0BJl17m/c2SWedtHS/LJHpGUjN3FhnbJX9rRM7SKXojslR3j cwQc/+Jhylo072s= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54E2D198B2D; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:55:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.105.40.190]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E40D4198B2C; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:54:56 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Eugen Konkov , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: Re* --creation-factor=100 does not show code References: <1196830250.20220726145447@yandex.ru> <7229p500-p2r4-on87-6802-8o90s36rr3s4@tzk.qr> <220728.86k07xjh11.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> <220728.86fsilj9w1.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 12:54:55 -0700 In-Reply-To: <220728.86fsilj9w1.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> (=?utf-8?B?IsOG?= =?utf-8?B?dmFyIEFybmZqw7Zyw7A=?= Bjarmason"'s message of "Thu, 28 Jul 2022 21:46:49 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 27E1261A-0EAF-11ED-AE76-CBA7845BAAA9-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason writes: > On Thu, Jul 28 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason writes: >> >>> That algorithm section also says: >>> >>> The cost of an edge o--C is the size of C's diff, modified by a >>> fudge factor that should be smaller than 100%. >>> >>> Which I find quite confusing to follow, isn't that "fudge factor" the >>> (or ) we're accepting with --creation-factor? Doesn= 't >>> that also need to be adjusted? >>> >>> I still find this documentation quicke lacking, if the default is 60 = and >>> it's not 0..100 what is it then? Are values of 200 sensible in some >>> cases, 1k? 10k? >> >> I think 90% of your responses are better answered not by me. Feel >> free to edit "to:" header field when that happens next time ;-) > > It's a comment on your patch: If you're updating the early in > the doc, shouldn't the proposed update also update the wording later on > to refer to "factor?" Per-cent in "100%" is clearly a unit. I do not know what to use to replace the mention of "100%" with. Rewriting it to "... should be smaller than 100-factor" does not result in a sensible description. Without other good questions like "if it is not 0..100 then in what range does the default 60 fall?" answered, I do not think anybody can come up with a useful replacement to that part.