Victoria Dye <vdye@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > After some basic performance testing of `git reset [--hard]`, it's not clear > whether `cache_tree_update` is definitively faster or slower than > `prime_cache_tree`; more conclusive results would indicate which of the two > could be skipped. I'd like to defer this to a future patch (tracking it with > an internal issue so I don't forget) where I can perform a more thorough > analysis across all of the commands currently using `prime_cache_tree` and > update its usage accordingly. Yup. That sounds sensible. Concentrating on correctness first is a good direction to go.
