On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 04:06:16PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
I'm biased, but I think the commit-graph is generally really good to
have
in almost all cases. I actually do not know of a good reason to _not_ have
it.
A lot depends on how much you do on the server. If you're serving a web
interface that runs things like `rev-list`, or `for-each-ref
--contains`, etc, then you should see a big improvement.
Ah, good to know, so something like cgit would see an improvement if
there are commit graphs generated for the repos it serves.
If you're _just_ serving fetches with `upload-pack`, you might see some
small improvement during fetch negotiation. But I suspect it would be
dwarfed by the cost of actually generating packs. Likewise, the
traversal there will be dominated by accessing trees (and if that is
expensive, then you ought to be using reachability bitmaps).
We do generate bitmaps on a routine basis.
OK, I think I'm convinced that enabling commitgraph and generating them
regularly is going to be a net win.
Thanks, everyone.
-K
