Hi, what you write is quite detailed :) Jakub Narebski wrote: > 6. git-sequencer > [...] > There were some problems with sequencer based implementation of > "git am --rebasing", or sequencer based patch application driven > ordinary rebase, but I think there were resolved. They were resolved, but there is a new problem that occured in the am --abort thread of Junio: the sequencer-based git-am does not work on dirty working tree. I've also fixed some other minor issues and have not yet sent this to the list (because I think I stumble over even more while writing the builtin-sequencer.) > Stephen have started the builtin sequencer (but till now no patches > were sent to list: seems to be work in progress). Right. > Some performance benchmarks: > * applying 45 patches with git-am > - 3 seconds using the original > - 8 seconds using the (scripted) sequencer-based one > * rebasing 100 commits > - 4.8 seconds using the original > - 10.1 seconds using the (scripted) sequencer-based one > - 1.7 seconds using builtin sequencer :) I think I'm going to format-patch the same 100 test commits and then I change the "applying 45 patches with git-am" part on the Wiki. Regards. -- Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@xxxxxxx>, PGP 0x6EDDD207FCC5040F -- 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
