Hi, On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 1:25 AM, Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/08, Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Here is the whole `git stash` C version. Some of the previous >> patches were already reviewed (up to and including "stash: convert >> store to builtin"), but there are some which were not >> (starting with "stash: convert create to builtin"). > > Thanks for this new iteration, and sorry I took a while to find some > time to review this. I had another read through the patches up until > patch 15, and left some comments, before running out of time again. I > hope to find some time in the next few days to go through the rest of > the series as well. Thank you a lot for taking time to review my patches. It really means a lot. > One more comment in terms of the structure of the series. The > patches doing the actual conversion from shell to C seem to be > interleaved with cleanup patches and patches that make the C version > use more internal APIs. I'd suggest putting all the cleanup patches > (e.g. "stash: change `git stash show` usage text and documentation") > to the front of the series, as that's more likely to be > uncontroversial, and could maybe even be merged by itself. Good point. > Then I'd put all the conversion from shell to C patches, and only once > everything is converted I'd put the patches to use more of the > internal APIs rather than using run_command everywhere. A possible > alternative would be to squash the patches to replace the run_command > calls with patches that use the internal API directly, to save the > reviewers some time by reading through less churn. Though I'm kind of > on the fence with that, as a faithful conversion using 'run_command' > may be easier to review as a first step. Makes sense. Actually, as you said, the patches that replace `run_command()` or `pipe_command()` were not squashed because I thought it might be more easier for reviewers. The `stash: replace all "git apply" child processes with API calls` patch is a exception to the rule because I was highly in doubts if the patch would actually be good. > Hope this helps! It helps a lot. Thank you! >> In order to see the difference between the shell version and >> the C version, I ran `time` on: >> >> * git test suite (t3903-stash.sh, t3904-stash-patch.sh, >> t3905-stash-include-untracked.sh and t3906-stash-submodule.sh) >> >> t3903-stash.sh: >> ** SHELL: 12,69s user 9,95s system 109% cpu 20,730 total >> ** C: 2,67s user 2,84s system 105% cpu 5,206 total >> >> t3904-stash-patch.sh: >> ** SHELL: 1,43s user 0,94s system 106% cpu 2,242 total >> ** C: 1,01s user 0,58s system 104% cpu 1,530 total >> >> t3905-stash-include-untracked.sh >> ** SHELL: 2,22s user 1,73s system 110% cpu 3,569 total >> ** C: 0,59s user 0,57s system 106% cpu 1,085 total >> >> t3906-stash-submodule.sh >> ** SHELL: 2,89s user 2,99s system 106% cpu 5,527 total >> ** C: 2,21s user 2,61s system 105% cpu 4,568 total >> >> TOTAL: >> ** SHELL: 19.23s user 15.61s system >> ** C: 6.48s user 6.60s system > > Awesome! I hope that it will get even better. Best regards, Paul
