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=-5.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 E8C001F935 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 18:01:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758687AbcIUSBT (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:01:19 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:50241 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756159AbcIUSBR (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:01:17 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5806A3F3D6; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:01:15 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; 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=tKdFGXenuvkU ts8fjYgr2+qkJeE=; b=w12+zMOUQOH1yvdqJ8DU4jFa+HLrpvSXBOE82NbjkZx6 2QOYpV/8M4YHR+cJAEwDZ+KBo3hHdOIQiH3DAD50vBGFYX2bD9Igi9eAr53C99+Q OP5jgkcZ54zfhLAVkBO8hjVTTd/vqmONQ59Wg5su+rPy42YDVxc9nv/N+7aDekQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=RZ4IzH 728tAI8PVcCZRZEY/3q+nFvpIb6/B19OaPLGhPiONYFGDC5N2/4WqOzVEBmvwy4J bN4guoDAjlau0/84kYdiviCdCIDh30ucAxKvvti2O/AGdPoUOVUHHKqVY3SDtiNW SuBdXOoqQ/BBuzIUIvmJNYjuSSHC3HOqJUmkU= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50A313F3D5; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:01:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C59AA3F3D4; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:01:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jakub =?utf-8?Q?Nar=C4=99bski?= Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] gitweb: Link to "git describe"'d commits in log messages References: <20160921114428.28664-1-avarab@gmail.com> <20160921114428.28664-3-avarab@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 11:01:12 -0700 In-Reply-To: ("Jakub =?utf-8?Q?Nar=C4=99bski=22's?= message of "Wed, 21 Sep 2016 19:49:23 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 63395FA8-8025-11E6-84A4-EAAE7A1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jakub Nar=C4=99bski writes: >> When I saw 2/3 I wondered about one thing and 3/3 shares the same, >> which is that we only use regex match and do not validate for a >> false match. Would it be too expensive... > > It's a matter of balance between false positives (and unresolving > links) and performance... Yes, and that is why I asked a simple yes-or-no question. Would it be too expensive? Your answer seems to be yes. Have we measured? Is that really a bottleneck? Would it help to update parse_commits to call a new command "gitweb--helper" that produces the result of what git_print_log would have done to its $log argument, for example?