Re: Rebase performance

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> At the risk of derailing this thread, a thing that would make rebase
> even faster I think would be to change it so that instead of applying
> a patch at a time to the working tree the whole operation takes place
> on temporary trees & commits and then we'll eventually move the branch
> pointer to that once it's finished.
>
> I.e. there's no reason for why a sequence of 1000 patches where a
> FOO.txt is changed from "hi1", "hi2", "hi3", ... would be noticeably
> slower than applying the same changes with git-fast-import.

Also, not touching the worktree during rebase would have the advantage
that if the final result doesn't change a file, we wouldn't need to
touch this file at all, hence the next "make" (or whatever
timestamp-using build system the user runs) would consider this file
unchanged.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]