Re: [RFC/PATCH] shortstatus v1

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:36:56PM +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote:

quoted

I would much prefer that, if it had been done that way from the
beginning. But I think we are stuck with "git status" due to hysterical
raisins.

ROTFTCOOTF!

I have to admit, this is a new acronym for me...I get the first half,
but not the second.

quoted

The big downside with the snippet I posted above is that it runs three
separate commands that go through the index. In theory, you could do it
in one pass. But wt-status _doesn't_ do that, since the diff
infrastructure isn't there (a long time ago, Junio had an experimental
parallel diff walker patch, but it never made it out of next).

We completely agree. How do you suggest to progress? Go for the diff
walker? For a (porc.) command like shortstatus I think going through the
index 3 times isn't that bad, all disk access should be cached after the
first run.

I don't know if resurrecting the parallel diff walker is worth the
trouble. I guess if somebody cares enough about the performance they can
find the old patch and try benchmarking it.

Making a C command rather than a shell script is probably reasonable if
this is performance critical (and there seems to be talk of putting it
into a prompt).  What I really object to in the patch is:

  - sticking this in builtin-commit.c. It really has _nothing_ to do
    with commit or the existing status. Especially using the same
    option parser is just nonsensical.

  - I'm not sure bolting this onto wt-status really makes much sense.
    Especially the performance-critical --mini prompt mode _doesn't_
    want to do the string collection because it wastes a lot of cycles
    figuring out things that we are just going to throw away.

    However, for the "regular" mode, I don't think it is too big a
    problem. wt_status does a few extra things that shortstatus won't
    care about, but I don't think they are too performance critical
    (e.g., I believe it will find out the "your branch is N commits
    ahead of the remote" information).

-Peff