Kyle Lippincott <spectral@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 02:08:35PM +0100, Dirk Gouders wrote: >> The 4th round of this series. >> >> Chances are that I just waste your time with my attemt [4/5]. >> My appologies in advance, should this be the case. >> >> Recently, there was a discussion [1] on the groff mailing list and I >> guess I couldn't resist to try to practice what I read in the linked >> resources ;-) >> >> [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2024-03/msg00014.html >> >> Could be that the remaining controversal part of [4/5] should just be >> left untouched, because it is consuming so much time -- I summarized >> all those versions, so that all incarnations can be compared in one >> view: >> >> * Original: >> >> Asking `traverse_commit_list_filtered()` to populate the `omitted` >> list means that our object walk does not perform any better than an >> unfiltered object walk; all reachable objects are walked in order to >> populate the list. >> >> * v3: >> >> Note that this means that our object walk will not perform any better >> than an unfiltered object walk; all reachable objects are walked in >> order to populate the list. >> >> * Junio's suggestion (with minor rearrangement): >> >> Note that our object walk with this function will not perform any >> better than the previous unfiltered walk, because all reachable >> objects need to be walked in order to populate the list of filtered >> objects. >> >> * Kyle's suggestion: >> >> Note that requesting the list of filtered objects may have performance >> implications; all reachable objects will be visited in order to >> populate the list of filtered objects. >> >> * My new attempt (v4): >> >> This list of filtered objects may have performance implications, >> however, because despite filtering objects, the possibly much larger >> set of all reachable objects must be processed in order to populate >> that list. > > I agree with the issues Junio raised on this phrasing, and trust in Junio's > judgement to get to a clear phrasing :) I'll be unresponsive to email for at > least the next two weeks, so please don't block awaiting my response on any > future rerolls. Thank you.
