Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > Though I am not happy that we have to look up the tracking ref for every > uptodate ref. I think it shouldn't be a big performance problem with > packed refs, though, since they are cached (i.e., we pay only to compare > the hashes, not touch the filesystem for each ref). It is either (1) the user pays the cost of finding what remote tracking branch we are mirroring when you push for all up-to-date refs, like you did in your "here is an improvement" patch; or (2) the user pays the cost of fetching from there, immediately after pushing. I'd imagine that the cost to do (1) would be smaller than (2). The question is if seeing stale tracking branches is such a big deal, as next "git fetch" from there will update them anyway. If it is a big deal, (1) would be a price worth paying. In short, I agree with everything you said in your analysis. Thanks for being a very good reviewer. Clemens, care to reroll the patch? -- 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
