Hi,
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Recreating the tip of "next" (10a6653) might be fun. I do not know why,
> but it ended up having 14 merge bases. The speed-up is about 6x, and
> the resulting half-merge is worse than recursive (not using rerere
> cache).
Well, my guess for these 14 merge bases is that you merge a lot between
topic branches.
As for the worse half-merge: I get only this difference:
-100644 fad39ff609f3ea27981e7a9ffdfc29731d1065d0 1 upload-pack.c
+100644 b6cc43c3c89c68e950c6d86298c928e9aab25e70 1 upload-pack.c
So, after both -recur and -recursive, upload-pack.c is in the index in an
unmerged state.
The difference between fad39ff6 (from -recur) and b6cc43c3 (from
-recursive) is that this block
-- snip --
if (nr_has < MAX_HAS) {
struct object *o = lookup_object(sha1);
if (!(o && o->parsed))
o = parse_object(sha1);
if (!o)
die("oops (%s)", sha1_to_hex(sha1));
if (o->type == OBJ_COMMIT) {
struct commit_list *parents;
if (o->flags & THEY_HAVE)
return 0;
o->flags |= THEY_HAVE;
for (parents = ((struct commit*)o)->parents;
parents;
parents = parents->next)
parents->item->object.flags |= THEY_HAVE;
}
memcpy(has_sha1[nr_has++], sha1, 20);
-- snap --
is inserted after (-recur), instead of before (-recursive), the clashing
block
-- snip --
o = lookup_object(sha1);
if (!(o && o->parsed))
o = parse_object(sha1);
if (!o)
die("oops (%s)", sha1_to_hex(sha1));
if (o->type == TYPE_COMMIT) {
struct commit_list *parents;
if (o->flags & THEY_HAVE)
return 0;
o->flags |= THEY_HAVE;
for (parents = ((struct commit*)o)->parents;
parents;
parents = parents->next)
parents->item->object.flags |= THEY_HAVE;
-- snap --
So, the order is actually saner, since one expects the upstream (newer)
version to come after the "====" line.
I fail to see how this is worse than -recursive...
Ciao,
Dscho
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html