On Thursday 21 January 2010 18:30:10 Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 08:57:37AM -0800, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:
> > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Hmm, no, but what is true is that I fetched several remotes
> > > that diverged significantly into the same local repository.
> > > Would that have same effect?
[...]
> > Hmm. I wonder if we should try to shortcut the commit walking in
> > a case like this and just feed the tracking branches we already have.
>
> Or for the case of 1,000s of commits ahead, git could try to implement a
> heuristic to reduce the number of commits sent. Currently all commits
> are sent in order, correct? How about binary search like what git
> bisect does?
I had a patch for this ages ago (that combines exponential-stride
backwards search and later bisection), but it was shot down on grounds
of not working at times and code convolution and I forgot about it...
I can give this another shot, but it seems most of the code has moved
due to the transport handlers changes, so I'll first have to read into
it again.
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
--
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