Web lists-archives.com

Re: [RFC] Generation Number v2




Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Here is a re-formatted version of the tables I introduced earlier.
> The tables were too wide for public-inbox to render correctly (when
> paired with my email client). Hopefully this bulleted-list format
> works better. Thanks, Stefan, for pointing out the rendering
> problems!
>
> ### Test 1: `git log --topo-order -N`
>
> This test focuses on the number of commits that are parsed during
> a `git log --topo-order` before writing `N` commits to output.
>
> You can reproduce this test using `topo-order-tests.sh` and
> see all the data in `topo-order-summary.txt`. The values reported
> here are a sampling of the data, ignoring tests where all values
> were the same or extremely close in value.
>
> android-base, N = 100
>     V0: 5487
>     V1: 8534
>     V2: 6937
>     V3: 6419
>     V4: 6453
[...]

> ### Test 2: `git log --topo-order -10 A..B`
[...]
> android-base 53c1972bc8f 92f18ac3e39
>   OLD: 39403
>    V0:  1544
>    V1:  6957
>    V2:    26
>    V3:  1015
>    V4:  1098

Two minor issues.  First, now that the data is not in the table format,
where every bit of horizontal space matters, why not spell the names of
new proposed "generation numbers" (or rather reachability orderings) in
full, instead of using V0...V4 shortcuts?  It is not as if we were short
of space.

Second, why OLD data is present in tests 2 and 3, but not in test 1?

Best,
-- 
Jakub Narębski