On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > So from these timings, I'd conclude that: > > 1. It's probably fine to turn on copies for "git status". > > 2. It's probably even OK to use "-C -C" for some projects. Even though > 22s looks scary there, that's only 11ms for git.git (remember, > spread across 2000 commits). For linux.git, it's much, much worse. > I killed my "-C -C" run after 10 minutes, and it had only gone > through 1/20th of the commits. Extrapolating, you're looking at > 500ms or so added to a "git status" run. > > So you'd almost certainly want this to be configurable. > > Does either of you want to try your hand at a patch? Just enabling > copies should be a one-liner. Making it configurable is more involved, > but should also be pretty straightforward. I'm interested in taking a stab at a patch, but I'd like to confirm which way to go. Based on Junio's reply I'm not certain the simple patch could get accepted (assuming I do all the submission parts properly and the implementation itself passes review). Does that mean the only real option is the configurable patch? > > -Peff -- 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