2011/2/16 Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>: > Nguyán ThÃi Ngác Duy Â<pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Signed-off-by: Nguyán ThÃi Ngác Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> Â 2011/2/15 Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>: >> Â > I did this myself the other day, as I think it simply is a good project >> Â > hygiene. ÂIf this were 1/2 of a series followed by 2/2 that runs binary >> Â > search in the table, that would make it make more sense ;-) >> >> Â I did think the array was binary-searched and nearly claimed "git-stage >> Â won't work because it's in wrong order". > > Heh, that "binary search" was a tongue-in-cheek comment. ÂI am sorry that > you took it too seriously. > >> Â This patch won't give any performance gain, but it would force >> Â people to keep the array in order :-) > > That is exactly why I discarded what I did the other day. ÂWithout an > active mechanism to force the orderedness, such a change simply introduces > a downside of letting a mistake go unnoticed, without any real upside (as > you measured and saw no performance gain). > > A better project hygine is a good thing to aim for, and I would imagine > that you could add "--verify-builtin-command-table" as an unadvertised > option to "git" wrapper, and make t/t0000-basic.sh call it to minimize the > downside risk. ÂBut without such an active measure to prevent mistakes, we > would be relying on somebody getting caught on a ticking bomb and > reporting it, which is not a good tradeoff between risk and reward. Ah, OK. Just drop this patch. I don't think doing binary search gains us much anyway. -- Duy -- 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