erik elfström <erik.elfstrom@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Ok, thanks for looking into this. > > I have no well founded opinions on the implementation but I do > think the performance tests would be more meaningful if the > setup/cleanup code could be removed from the timed section. > If the community agrees on an implementation I would be happy > to convert the new tests, either directly in this series or as a follow > up if that is preferred. Let's not delay the fix and do the perf thing as a follow-up series, possibly an even independent one. In other words, let's keep the topics small. > > /Erik > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 04/18, Erik Elfström wrote: >>> * Still have issues in the performance tests, see comments >>> from Thomas Gummerer on v2 >> >> I've looked at the "modern" style tests again, and I don't the code >> churn is worth it just for using them for the performance tests. If >> anyone wants to take a look at the code, it's at >> github.com/tgummerer/git tg/perf-lib. >> >> I think adding the test_perf_setup_cleanup command would make more >> sense in this case. If you want I can send a patch for that. -- 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