| commit | 67fa6aac5af508b307c0d6968a28d50d14e7c026 | [log] [tgz] |
|---|---|---|
| author | SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> | Sat Sep 07 01:01:33 2019 -0400 |
| committer | Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> | Mon Sep 09 10:56:43 2019 -0700 |
| tree | 6e30f59f726e8d7ca4cf089d94870d69de0e3447 | |
| parent | 5fa0f5238b0cd46cfe7f6fa76c3f526ea98148d9 [diff] |
commit-graph: don't show progress percentages while expanding reachable commits Commit 49bbc57a57 (commit-graph write: emit a percentage for all progress, 2019-01-19) was a bit overeager when it added progress percentages to the "Expanding reachable commits in commit graph" phase as well, because most of the time the number of commits that phase has to iterate over is not known in advance and grows significantly, and, consequently, we end up with nonsensical numbers: $ git commit-graph write --reachable Expanding reachable commits in commit graph: 138606% (824706/595), done. [...] $ git rev-parse v5.0 | git commit-graph write --stdin-commits Expanding reachable commits in commit graph: 81264400% (812644/1), done. [...] Even worse, because the percentage grows so quickly, the progress code outputs much more often than it should (because it ticks every second, or every 1%), slowing the whole process down. My time for "git commit-graph write --reachable" on linux.git went from 13.463s to 12.521s with this patch, ~7% savings. Therefore, don't show progress percentages in the "Expanding reachable commits in commit graph" phase. Note that the current code does sometimes do the right thing, if we picked up all commits initially (e.g., omitting "--reachable" in a fully-packed repository would get the correct count without any parent traversal). So it may be possible to come up with a way to tell when we could use a percentage here. But in the meantime, let's make sure we robustly avoid printing nonsense. Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Git is a fast, scalable, distributed revision control system with an unusually rich command set that provides both high-level operations and full access to internals.
Git is an Open Source project covered by the GNU General Public License version 2 (some parts of it are under different licenses, compatible with the GPLv2). It was originally written by Linus Torvalds with help of a group of hackers around the net.
Please read the file INSTALL for installation instructions.
Many Git online resources are accessible from https://git-scm.com/ including full documentation and Git related tools.
See Documentation/gittutorial.txt to get started, then see Documentation/giteveryday.txt for a useful minimum set of commands, and Documentation/git-<commandname>.txt for documentation of each command. If git has been correctly installed, then the tutorial can also be read with man gittutorial or git help tutorial, and the documentation of each command with man git-<commandname> or git help <commandname>.
CVS users may also want to read Documentation/gitcvs-migration.txt (man gitcvs-migration or git help cvs-migration if git is installed).
The user discussion and development of Git take place on the Git mailing list -- everyone is welcome to post bug reports, feature requests, comments and patches to git@vger.kernel.org (read Documentation/SubmittingPatches for instructions on patch submission). To subscribe to the list, send an email with just “subscribe git” in the body to majordomo@vger.kernel.org. The mailing list archives are available at https://public-inbox.org/git/, http://marc.info/?l=git and other archival sites.
Issues which are security relevant should be disclosed privately to the Git Security mailing list git-security@googlegroups.com.
The maintainer frequently sends the “What's cooking” reports that list the current status of various development topics to the mailing list. The discussion following them give a good reference for project status, development direction and remaining tasks.
The name “git” was given by Linus Torvalds when he wrote the very first version. He described the tool as “the stupid content tracker” and the name as (depending on your mood):