On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Dennis Kaarsemaker <dennis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On di, 2015-05-19 at 06:57 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 6:35 AM, Johannes Schindelin >> <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > On 2015-05-18 20:18, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> >> >> So I dunno. I really wish test_commit didn't create tags and either >> >> left the tagging to the calling script. >> > >> > Or maybe just add a --tag flag to `test_commit` and use that in all cases where the tags were actually needed. Yeah, I think I like that option best. >> >> Thanks for inferring what I wanted to say but left unsaid due to my >> stupidity and >> lack of proofreading. I meant to follow "either left to the caller" >> with "or with an >> option" ;-) > > I took a stab at this, adding a --tag option to test_commit and adding > the option to the test_commit calls that need it (or removing tests' > reliance on these tags where appropriate, or removing tests' workarounds > for dealing with these tags when they don't want them), and the result > is 59 files changed, 280 insertions(+), 281 deletions(-) I guess most of the line changes are just adding the --tag? And I'd guess (281-280) that there is no huge code inside of test_commit either, so I'd assume it doesn't add clutter, but rather cleans up.... > > A test run on master with GIT_TEST_LONG set causes 1138 calls to > test_commit on my system, of which 255 now use the --tag option > (measured with a really crude hack that INCR's some keys in redis at > appropriate points in test_commit). ... 255 out of 1138 is awesome IMHO! Do you see an improvement in time as well (as in "time make test" is X% faster overall) ? > > Is this interesting enough to turn into a proper patch series? I'd think this is worth making a real patch, definitely! Thanks, Stefan -- 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