On Tuesday 19 April 2005 04:38 pm, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Steven Cole wrote: > > > > But perhaps a progress bar right about here might be > > a good thing for the terminally impatient. > > > > real 3m54.909s > > user 0m14.835s > > sys 0m10.587s > > > > 4 minutes might be long enough to cause some folks to lose hope. > > Well, the real operations took only 15 seconds. What kind of horribe > person are you, that you don't have all of the kernel in your disk cache > already? Shame on you. > > Or was the 4 minutes for downloading all the objest too? Yes, I was using a very recent version of the pasky tools, I had created the repo this morning with git init YOUR_RSYC_URL_FOR_LINUX-2.6. I did time git pull origin and watched the fur fly. Then, the flurry of patching file blah messages, followed by a rather pregnant pause after the last patching message. I wasn't complaining about the 4 minutes, just the lack of feedback during the majority of that time. And most of it was after the last patching file message. > > Anyway, it looks like you are using pasky's scripts, and the old > "patch-based" upgrade at that. You certainly will _not_ see the > > [many files patched] > patching file mm/mmap.c > .. > > if you use a real git merge. That's probable be the real problem here. > > Real merges have no patches taking place _anywhere_. And they take about > half a second. Doing an "update" of your tree should _literally_ boil down > to > > # > # "repo" needs to point to the repo we update from > # > rsync -avz --ignore-existing $repo/objects/. .git/objects/. > rsync -L $repo/HEAD .git/NEW_HEAD || exit 1 > read-tree -m $(cat .git/NEW_HEAD) || exit 1 > checkout-cache -f -a > update-cache --refresh > mv .git/NEW_HEAD .git/HEAD > > and if it does anything else, it's literally broken. Btw, the above does > need my "read-tree -m" thing which I committed today. > > (CAREFUL: the above is not a good script, because it _will_ just overwrite > all your old contents with the stuff you updated to. You should thus not > actually use something like this, but a "git update" should literally end > up doing the above operations in the end, and just add proper checking). > > And if that takes 4 minutes, you've got problems. > > Just say no to patches. > > Linus > > PS: If you want a clean tree without any old files or anything else, for > that matter, you can then do a "show-files -z --others | xargs -0 rm", but > be careful: that will blow away _anything_ that wasn't revision controlled > with git. So don't blame me if your pr0n collection is gone afterwards. > OK. I may try some of this tomorrow from work, where I have a fat pipe. I'm on dialup from home, and I suspect not very many folks want to hear the sad tale of how long it takes to get the kernel over 56k dialup. Steven
