On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 12:34:18PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > 1: 89fa0ec8d8 ! 1: 3e1b94d7d6 pack-bitmap: save "have" bitmap from walk
> > @@ -69,6 +69,8 @@
> > +
> > + if (!bitmap_git)
> > + return 0; /* no bitmap loaded */
> > ++ if (!bitmap_git->result)
> > ++ BUG("failed to perform bitmap walk before querying");
> > + if (!bitmap_git->haves)
> > + return 0; /* walk had no "haves" */
> > +
>
> The first four are unchanged, so this actually compares 5/6 of the
> previous and the current one. Omitting the four identical ones
> makes sense, but I wonder if it makes it easier to see if we keep
> the number-label of the surviving patches.
Agreed, but I think this is user error, and not the tool.
I ran:
git range-diff @{push}...HEAD
since I knew that I had not pushed since beginning my revisions today.
But of course "rebase -i" is clever enough not to change the commit id
on the earlier commits I did not touch, and thus the merge base is
actually patch 4.
I should instead be more explicit about the base, like:
git range-diff origin @{push} HEAD
That shows much more sensible output (see below).
For my triangular setup, I could even do:
git range-diff @{upstream} @{push} HEAD
but I'm not sure if that is generally applicable advice (I'm not sure
how many people have really bought into @{push} and using triangular
config -- traditionally I think many people treat @{upstream} as the
place they push to). It also needs adjusting if your revisions might
span several sessions; you'd really need @{push}@{yesterday} or similar.
The best thing to compare against is probably what got queued, so
something like:
git range-diff origin..origin/jk/$branch_name origin..HEAD
though that also introduces sign-off noise.
-Peff
-- >8 --
1: 9665189d70 = 1: 9665189d70 t/perf: factor boilerplate out of test_perf
2: fa1ad80e4e = 2: fa1ad80e4e t/perf: factor out percent calculations
3: abf0ddbb9f = 3: abf0ddbb9f t/perf: add infrastructure for measuring sizes
4: 49981526ad = 4: 49981526ad t/perf: add perf tests for fetches from a bitmapped server
5: 89fa0ec8d8 ! 5: 3e1b94d7d6 pack-bitmap: save "have" bitmap from walk
@@ -69,6 +69,8 @@
+
+ if (!bitmap_git)
+ return 0; /* no bitmap loaded */
++ if (!bitmap_git->result)
++ BUG("failed to perform bitmap walk before querying");
+ if (!bitmap_git->haves)
+ return 0; /* walk had no "haves" */
+
6: f7ca0d59e3 ! 6: b8b2416aac pack-objects: reuse on-disk deltas for thin "have" objects
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
However, this misses some opportunities. Modulo some special
cases like shallow or partial clones, we know that every
object reachable from the "haves" could be a preferred base.
- We don't use them all for two reasons:
+ We don't use all of them for two reasons:
1. It's expensive to traverse the whole history and
enumerate all of the objects the other side has.
@@ -100,15 +100,16 @@
The second is that the rest of the code assumes that any
reused delta will point to another "struct object_entry" as
- its base. But by definition, we don't have such an entry!
+ its base. But of course the case we are interested in here
+ is the one where don't have such an entry!
I looked at a number of options that didn't quite work:
- - we could use a different flag for reused deltas. But it's
- not a single bit for "I'm being reused". We have to
- actually store the oid of the base, which is normally
- done by pointing to the existing object_entry. And we'd
- have to modify all the code which looks at deltas.
+ - we could use a flag to signal a reused delta, but it's
+ not a single bit. We have to actually store the oid of
+ the base, which is normally done by pointing to the
+ existing object_entry. And we'd have to modify all the
+ code which looks at deltas.
- we could add the reused bases to the end of the existing
object_entry array. While this does create some extra
@@ -173,7 +174,7 @@
static int depth = 50;
static int delta_search_threads;
static int pack_to_stdout;
-+static int thin = 0;
++static int thin;
static int num_preferred_base;
static struct progress *progress_state;
