"Alex Riesen" [off-list ref] writes:
On 1/10/07, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
This comes on top of yours.
I'm reproducing all the merges in linux-2.6 history to make sure
the base one, yours and this produce the same result (the same
clean merge, or the same unmerged index and the same diff from
HEAD). So far it is looking good.
Yep. Tried the monster merge on it: 1m15sec on that small laptop.
Is that supposed to be a good news? It sounds awfully slow.
For whatever reason your patch left an "if (cache_dirty) flush_cache()",
that's after my patch + yours. Had it removed.
That's because my copy of "your patch" has the fix-up I
suggested to remove the flush from process_renames() already --
the removal of that one and removal from process_entry() you did
logically belong to each other.