On Sat, 12 Jan 2008, Sam Vilain wrote: > Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > Sorry to rain on your parade, but to me 6-10% time saving is not a clear > > win at all, given the equal increase in repository size. This is simply > > not worth it. > > Agree. > > > And a 50% time saving on an operation, such a git log, which takes less > > than 2 seconds in absolute time, is not worth the repo size increase > > either. > > Disagree. Going as much as twice as fast for many history operations > for 10% added space sounds like a clear win to me. If you can come with a real life scenario, and not simply a simple test having little relevance with typical usage, that shows a clear reduction in execution time which is human perceptible, then I'll agree with you. But doing a full history log taking one second instead of two isn't a good enough argument to me for making the repository many megabytes larger. Again if it was 'git blame' using 5 seconds instead of 10 then I would agree that this is a clear win, even if this is also a 50% execution time reduction. But human perception is way more important when it is 10 secs down to 5 compared to 2 secs down to 1. This proposed change isn't free, because you have to introduce a regression in one place in order to make a gain somewhere else. The pack v4 format that I developed with Shawn, though, was showing _both_ a speed gain and a repository size reduction, hence there is no regression for the added improvements. *That* is a clear win. > We can easily agree > to disagree though I suppose we do. Nicolas - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
