On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 18:15:53 +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > Yes there's the test problem I mentioned in [1], but in addition to that > your current set of patches have around a ~10% performance regression, > as noted in [2]. My RFC series[2] side-steps that by leaving the current > code in-place, and only introducing a new optional --format path for new > output formats. > > I really don't mind if you go for "WAY-1" first over my RFC --format > "WAY-2", but I do think any such change should be prominently > noting/selling that this new feature is worth the performance > regression, or finding some alternate "WAY-1+" to avoid it. Yes, I see what you mean, and what I'm trying to say is that we see eye to eye on this. As I mentioned above, the performace regression is compelling and I looked into it on the night before and already found out why the regression was produced (But I can not send patch over gmail at home because of the network, maybe i'd like to try with GitGitGadget next time). I will not omit this problem and go on working at it today, similarly, wouldn't reply this thread otherwise the new patchset is reach the standard (As I see the "cooking" is let others know what's new and the corresponding progress currently and discussions should still be made under the "patch"). Thanks.
