← Back to team overview

dulwich team mailing list archive

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Lazily read the contents of ShaFiles from disk.

 

On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 16:49 -0700, David Borowitz wrote:
> Thanks for merging these! I realized that I forgot to push one of
> these to github, so there's one more in the queue:
> http://github.com/dborowitz/dulwich/commit/8db9444ba8a58e3c65fc2b5195eba77fb36b0fcf
Awesomeness. Merged, thanks!

> I'll also be sending out the next set of patches hopefully tomorrow.
Ok.

Cheers,

Jelmer

> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 17:45, David Borowitz <dborowitz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>         Done. http://github.com/dborowitz/dulwich is these three
>         commits on top of your master branch sometime yesterday.
>         
>         
>         On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 16:48, David Borowitz
>         <dborowitz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>                 Sure, I'll push them to my github repo shortly.
>                 
>                 
>                 
>                 On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 16:22, Jelmer Vernooij
>                 <jelmer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>                         Hi Dave,
>                         
>                         On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 08:47 -0700,
>                         dborowitz@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>                         > From: Dave Borowitz <dborowitz@xxxxxxxxxx>
>                         >
>                         > Previously, ShaFile.from_file read and
>                         inflated the entire contents of a
>                         > ShaFile, storing the inflated text in
>                         memory. Parsing that text was done
>                         > lazily, but this resulted in a confusing
>                         performance profile, since the
>                         > "lazy" part was in fact faster
>                         (memory/CPU-bound) than the eager part
>                         > (I/O-bound).
>                         
>                         Any chance you can push these revisions up to
>                         a git repository
>                         somewhere? The patches don't apply cleanly, so
>                         being able to use merge
>                         would be nice.
>                         
>                         Cheers,
>                         
>                         Jelmer
>                 
>                 
>         
>         
> 
> 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


References