Junio C Hamano <junkio@xxxxxxx> wrote: > "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > For a really trivial merge which can be handled entirely by > > `read-tree -m -u`, skipping the read-tree and just going directly > > into merge-recursive saves on average 50 ms on my PowerPC G4 system. > > May sound odd, but it does appear to be true. > > This sounds awfully attractive yet disruptive. Should be cooked > in 'next' for at least two weeks, maybe even longer to verify > that performance figure holds for everybody. I agree. I have been thinking about doing this for a while but just never sat down and did it until night. To get it in 1.5.0 I probably should have done this back in early Decmember. Whoops, bad timing on my part. ;-) > Also I think you need to make sure running merge-recursive > upfront offers the same safety as the code you are removing then > running it, as I vaguely recall its checking for local changes > were slightly looser. >From what I can tell, merge-recursive and read-tree -m are running exactly the same code. So aside from the fact that I bypassed the update-index --refresh by accident, I don't think they will have different outcomes. -- Shawn. - 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