Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 12/1/2019 11:22 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> In general I like this change. I'm happy that this was split into a >>> method instead of crammed into the block of the "if" below. >>> >>>> + clear_author_date_slab(&info->author_date); >>> >>> The only issue I have is that the author_date slab should not be >>> cleared. That is used by more than the topo-walk AND the values for >>> author dates will not change between subsequent revision walks. Just >>> drop that line and we should be good to go! >> >> Hmph, isn't this merely a performance thing, or would a slab that >> was once cleared never repopulate upon its second use (i.e. >> affecting correctness)? > > Yes, this is only a performance thing. If you think it is safest to > clear it here, then it can stay. Let's keep what is already in 'next' ;-) and possibly follow-up with a separate patch to remove this line, justfying the change as performance improvement. Thanks.
