Re: Issues with using git debrebase for linux

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Issues with using git debrebase for linux"):
> Ben Hutchings writes ("Issues with using git debrebase for linux"):
> > 1. Safe rebasing
...
> > git-debrebase: error: No ongoing git-debrebase session.
...
> > Why was there no pseudo-merge?  Shouldn't the remote tracking branch
> > have been recorded as ffq-prev?
> 
> I think this is probably a bug.  I will try to reproduce it.  (I'm
> still cloning the giant repo.)

There is definitely a bug here, which I have just filed.

> > 3. Speed of operation
> > 
> > git debrebase (that is, the default operation) is very slow in the
> > linux repository.  I don't know whether the size of the tree, or the
> > number of commits to upstream code, or both, is the problem.  On stable
> > branches we may have 1000 or more such commits, so if (as I suspect)
> > the time is proportional to that number then I think we would need at
> > least a factor of 10 improvement in the speed of operation.
> 
> You have a 1000-commit delta queue ?  Wow.

I see that your delta queue is only 160-odd commits but the changes
since last anchor are more.  It is indeed very slow.

git-debrebase -i is particularly bad.  It can easily be made as fast
as git-debrebase status.

git-debrebase status could do with improvement too.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.