Hi Linus, On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Johannes Schindelin > <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > But I think bigger than just developers on Windows OS. There are many > > developers out there working on large repositories (yes, much larger > > than Linux). Also using Macs and Linux. I am not at all sure that we > > want to give them an updated Git they cannot fail to notice to be much > > slower than before. > > Johannes, have you *tried* the patches? > > I really don't think you have. It is completely unnoticeable in any > normal situation. The two cases that it's noticeable is: > > - a full fsck is noticeable slower > > - a full non-local clone is slower (but not really noticeably so > since the network traffic dominates). > > In other words, I think you're making shit up. I don't think you > understand how little the SHA1 performance actually matters. It's > noticeable in benchmarks. It's not noticeable in any normal operation. > > .. and yes, I've actually been running the patches locally since I > posted my first version (which apparently didn't go out to the list > because of list size limits) and now running the version in 'pu'. If you think that the Linux repository is a big one, then your reaction is understandable. I have zero interest in potty language, therefore my reply is very terse: yes, I have been looking ad SHA-1 performance, and yes, it matters. Think an index file of 300-400MB. Ciao, Johannes