On 2009.08.05 08:34:12 -0700, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > Bj?rn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@xxxxxx> wrote: > > If we found no refs that may be used for git-describe with the current > > options, then die early instead of pointlessly walking the whole history. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bj?rn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@xxxxxx> > > --- > > In git.git with all the tags dropped, this makes "git describe" go down > > from 0.244 to 0.003 seconds for me. This is especially noticeable with > > "git submodule" which calls describe with increasing levels of allowed > > refs to be matched. Without tags, this means that it walks the whole > > history in the submodule twice (first annotated, then plain tags), just > > to find out that it can't describe the thing anyway. > > > > I'm not particularly sure about found_names actually counting the found > > names, it was just out of the thought that maybe the walking code could > > make use of it, but I didn't actually check that and ran out of time, so > > I'm sending this version, hoping that it doesn't suck too much. > > This seems reasonable to me. Really you don't need found_names > to be a counter, but could just always set it to 1 every time the > add_to_known_names function is called. All you care about is that > add_to_known_names was invoked at least once. OK. > Also, I really think that first paragraph after the --- should > have been part of the commit message. The message above doesn't > justify the change, even if it is fairly trivial, without that > additional explanation. Oh, d'oh, that's even what I intended to do (the original commit message was written in even more of a hurry than the mail itself), but messed up. Will re-send (also with found_names turned boolean) Thanks, Björn -- 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