On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:16 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> This small patch series makes it easy to spot big performance >> regressions, so that they can later be investigated. >> >> For example: >> >> $ ./aggregate.perl --sortbyregression --subsection "without libpcre" v2.14.3 v2.15.1 v2.16.2 p4220-log-grep-engines.sh > > Are we comfortable with the idea that other kinds of sorting, when > invented in the future, would have to say > > $ ./aggregate.perl --sortbysomethingelse --subsection "without libpcre" \ > A B C p4220-log-grep-engines.sh > > or will we regret that and wish if we could write it as > > $ ./aggregate.perl --sort-by=somethingelse --subsection "without libpcre" \ > A B C p4220-log-grep-engines.sh > > If the latter, perhaps we should use --soft-by=regression from day one. Yeah, I think it is probably better to use --sort-by=regression (not --soft-by ;-), so I will use that in the next version. > Do we expect that "taking a lot more more rtime than the previous" > will stay to be the only kind of "regression" we care about in the > context of t/perf? If so, there is no need for further suggestion, > but if not, perhaps we should plan if/how we could also parameterize > the "rtime" part from the command line. E.g. > > $ ./aggregate.perl --sort-by=regression:stime > > might be a way to say "we only care about the stime part" in the > future, even though --sort-by=regression may be a short-hand to say > "we care about rtime regression" i.e. "--sort-by=regression:rtime". Yeah, I think we can have the short form "--sort-by=regression" mean "--sort-by=regression:rtime" and skip implementing the long form. I will talk about the long form in the commit message.
