On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 3:54 PM Zach FettersMoore via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Zach FettersMoore <zach.fetters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > When there are multiple subtrees present in a repository and they are > all using 'git subtree split', the 'split' command can take a > significant (and constantly growing) amount of time to run even when > using the '--rejoin' flag. This is due to the fact that when processing > commits to determine the last known split to start from when looking > for changes, if there has been a split/merge done from another subtree > there will be 2 split commits, one mainline and one subtree, for the > second subtree that are part of the processing. The non-mainline > subtree split commit will cause the processing to always need to search > the entire history of the given subtree as part of its processing even > though those commits are totally irrelevant to the current subtree > split being run. > > To see this in practice you can use the open source GitHub repo > 'apollo-ios-dev' and do the following in order: > > -Make a changes to a file in 'apollo-ios' and 'apollo-ios-codegen' > directories > -Create a commit containing these changes > -Do a split on apollo-ios-codegen > - Do a fetch on the subtree repo > - git fetch git@xxxxxxxxxx:apollographql/apollo-ios-codegen.git > - git subtree split --prefix=apollo-ios-codegen --squash --rejoin Now I get the following without your patch at this step: $ git subtree split --prefix=apollo-ios-codegen --squash --rejoin [...]/libexec/git-core/git-subtree: 318: Maximum function recursion depth (1000) reached Line 318 in git-subtree.sh contains the following: missed=$(cache_miss "$@") || exit $? With your patch it seems to work: $ git subtree split --prefix=apollo-ios-codegen --squash --rejoin Merge made by the 'ort' strategy. e274aed3ba6d0659fb4cc014587cf31c1e8df7f4 > - Depending on the current state of the 'apollo-ios-dev' repo > you may see the issue at this point if the last split was on > apollo-ios I guess I see it, but it seems a bit different for me than what you describe. Otherwise your patch looks good to me now. Thanks, Christian.
