| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Failures within `for` and `while` loops can go unnoticed if not detected
and signaled manually since the loop itself does not abort when a
contained command fails, nor will a failure necessarily be detected when
the loop finishes since the loop returns the exit code of the last
command it ran on the final iteration, which may not be the command
which failed. Therefore, detect and signal failures manually within
loops using the idiom `|| return 1` (or `|| exit 1` within subshells).
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
b3dfeebb92 (rebase: avoid computing unnecessary patch IDs, 2016-07-29)
added a perf test that calls tac(1) from GNU core utilities. Support
systems without it by reversing the generated list using sort -nr
instead. sort(1) with options -n and -r is already used in other tests.
Signed-off-by: René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Perf tests have not been linted for some time.
They've grown some seq instead of test_seq. This
runs the existing lints on the perf tests as well.
Signed-off-by: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
p3400 makes a copy of the current repository to test git-rebase
performance, and creates new branches in the copy with `git checkout
-b'. If the original repository has branches with the same name as the
script is trying to create, this operation will fail.
This replaces these calls by `git checkout -B' to force the creation and
update of these branches.
Signed-off-by: Alban Gruin <alban.gruin@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Rebasing onto many changes is interesting, but it's also
interesting to see what happens when rebasing many changes.
And while at it, let's also look at the impact of using a
split index.
Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
The `rebase` family of Git commands avoid applying patches that were
already integrated upstream. They do that by using the revision walking
option that computes the patch IDs of the two sides of the rebase
(local-only patches vs upstream-only ones) and skipping those local
patches whose patch ID matches one of the upstream ones.
In many cases, this causes unnecessary churn, as already the set of
paths touched by a given commit would suffice to determine that an
upstream patch has no local equivalent.
This hurts performance in particular when there are a lot of upstream
patches, and/or large ones.
Therefore, let's introduce the concept of a "diff-header-only" patch ID,
compare those first, and only evaluate the "full" patch ID lazily.
Please note that in contrast to the "full" patch IDs, those
"diff-header-only" patch IDs are prone to collide with one another, as
adjacent commits frequently touch the very same files. Hence we now
have to be careful to allow multiple hash entries with the same hash.
We accomplish that by using the hashmap_add() function that does not even
test for hash collisions. This also allows us to evaluate the full patch ID
lazily, i.e. only when we found commits with matching diff-header-only
patch IDs.
We add a performance test that demonstrates ~1-6% improvement. In
practice this will depend on various factors such as how many upstream
changes and how big those changes are along with whether file system
caches are cold or warm. As Git's test suite has no way of catching
performance regressions, we also add a regression test that verifies
that the full patch ID computation is skipped when the diff-header-only
computation suffices.
Signed-off-by: Kevin Willford <kcwillford@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
