git-commit-vandalism/t/t5322-pack-objects-sparse.sh

142 lines
4.4 KiB
Bash
Raw Normal View History

list-objects: consume sparse tree walk When creating a pack-file using 'git pack-objects --revs' we provide a list of interesting and uninteresting commits. For example, a push operation would make the local topic branch be interesting and the known remote refs as uninteresting. We want to discover the set of new objects to send to the server as a thin pack. We walk these commits until we discover a frontier of commits such that every commit walk starting at interesting commits ends in a root commit or unintersting commit. We then need to discover which non-commit objects are reachable from uninteresting commits. This commit walk is not changing during this series. The mark_edges_uninteresting() method in list-objects.c iterates on the commit list and does the following: * If the commit is UNINTERSTING, then mark its root tree and every object it can reach as UNINTERESTING. * If the commit is interesting, then mark the root tree of every UNINTERSTING parent (and all objects that tree can reach) as UNINTERSTING. At the very end, we repeat the process on every commit directly given to the revision walk from stdin. This helps ensure we properly cover shallow commits that otherwise were not included in the frontier. The logic to recursively follow trees is in the mark_tree_uninteresting() method in revision.c. The algorithm avoids duplicate work by not recursing into trees that are already marked UNINTERSTING. Add a new 'sparse' option to the mark_edges_uninteresting() method that performs this logic in a slightly different way. As we iterate over the commits, we add all of the root trees to an oidset. Then, call mark_trees_uninteresting_sparse() on that oidset. Note that we include interesting trees in this process. The current implementation of mark_trees_unintersting_sparse() will walk the same trees as the old logic, but this will be replaced in a later change. Add a '--sparse' flag in 'git pack-objects' to call this new logic. Add a new test script t/t5322-pack-objects-sparse.sh that tests this option. The tests currently demonstrate that the resulting object list is the same as the old algorithm. This includes a case where both algorithms pack an object that is not needed by a remote due to limits on the explored set of trees. When the sparse algorithm is changed in a later commit, we will add a test that demonstrates a change of behavior in some cases. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-01-16 19:25:58 +01:00
#!/bin/sh
test_description='pack-objects object selection using sparse algorithm'
GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=main
tests: mark tests relying on the current default for `init.defaultBranch` In addition to the manual adjustment to let the `linux-gcc` CI job run the test suite with `master` and then with `main`, this patch makes sure that GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME is set in all test scripts that currently rely on the initial branch name being `master by default. To determine which test scripts to mark up, the first step was to force-set the default branch name to `master` in - all test scripts that contain the keyword `master`, - t4211, which expects `t/t4211/history.export` with a hard-coded ref to initialize the default branch, - t5560 because it sources `t/t556x_common` which uses `master`, - t8002 and t8012 because both source `t/annotate-tests.sh` which also uses `master`) This trick was performed by this command: $ sed -i '/^ *\. \.\/\(test-lib\|lib-\(bash\|cvs\|git-svn\)\|gitweb-lib\)\.sh$/i\ GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=master\ export GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME\ ' $(git grep -l master t/t[0-9]*.sh) \ t/t4211*.sh t/t5560*.sh t/t8002*.sh t/t8012*.sh After that, careful, manual inspection revealed that some of the test scripts containing the needle `master` do not actually rely on a specific default branch name: either they mention `master` only in a comment, or they initialize that branch specificially, or they do not actually refer to the current default branch. Therefore, the aforementioned modification was undone in those test scripts thusly: $ git checkout HEAD -- \ t/t0027-auto-crlf.sh t/t0060-path-utils.sh \ t/t1011-read-tree-sparse-checkout.sh \ t/t1305-config-include.sh t/t1309-early-config.sh \ t/t1402-check-ref-format.sh t/t1450-fsck.sh \ t/t2024-checkout-dwim.sh \ t/t2106-update-index-assume-unchanged.sh \ t/t3040-subprojects-basic.sh t/t3301-notes.sh \ t/t3308-notes-merge.sh t/t3423-rebase-reword.sh \ t/t3436-rebase-more-options.sh \ t/t4015-diff-whitespace.sh t/t4257-am-interactive.sh \ t/t5323-pack-redundant.sh t/t5401-update-hooks.sh \ t/t5511-refspec.sh t/t5526-fetch-submodules.sh \ t/t5529-push-errors.sh t/t5530-upload-pack-error.sh \ t/t5548-push-porcelain.sh \ t/t5552-skipping-fetch-negotiator.sh \ t/t5572-pull-submodule.sh t/t5608-clone-2gb.sh \ t/t5614-clone-submodules-shallow.sh \ t/t7508-status.sh t/t7606-merge-custom.sh \ t/t9302-fast-import-unpack-limit.sh We excluded one set of test scripts in these commands, though: the range of `git p4` tests. The reason? `git p4` stores the (foreign) remote branch in the branch called `p4/master`, which is obviously not the default branch. Manual analysis revealed that only five of these tests actually require a specific default branch name to pass; They were modified thusly: $ sed -i '/^ *\. \.\/lib-git-p4\.sh$/i\ GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=master\ export GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME\ ' t/t980[0167]*.sh t/t9811*.sh Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-11-19 00:44:19 +01:00
export GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME
list-objects: consume sparse tree walk When creating a pack-file using 'git pack-objects --revs' we provide a list of interesting and uninteresting commits. For example, a push operation would make the local topic branch be interesting and the known remote refs as uninteresting. We want to discover the set of new objects to send to the server as a thin pack. We walk these commits until we discover a frontier of commits such that every commit walk starting at interesting commits ends in a root commit or unintersting commit. We then need to discover which non-commit objects are reachable from uninteresting commits. This commit walk is not changing during this series. The mark_edges_uninteresting() method in list-objects.c iterates on the commit list and does the following: * If the commit is UNINTERSTING, then mark its root tree and every object it can reach as UNINTERESTING. * If the commit is interesting, then mark the root tree of every UNINTERSTING parent (and all objects that tree can reach) as UNINTERSTING. At the very end, we repeat the process on every commit directly given to the revision walk from stdin. This helps ensure we properly cover shallow commits that otherwise were not included in the frontier. The logic to recursively follow trees is in the mark_tree_uninteresting() method in revision.c. The algorithm avoids duplicate work by not recursing into trees that are already marked UNINTERSTING. Add a new 'sparse' option to the mark_edges_uninteresting() method that performs this logic in a slightly different way. As we iterate over the commits, we add all of the root trees to an oidset. Then, call mark_trees_uninteresting_sparse() on that oidset. Note that we include interesting trees in this process. The current implementation of mark_trees_unintersting_sparse() will walk the same trees as the old logic, but this will be replaced in a later change. Add a '--sparse' flag in 'git pack-objects' to call this new logic. Add a new test script t/t5322-pack-objects-sparse.sh that tests this option. The tests currently demonstrate that the resulting object list is the same as the old algorithm. This includes a case where both algorithms pack an object that is not needed by a remote due to limits on the explored set of trees. When the sparse algorithm is changed in a later commit, we will add a test that demonstrates a change of behavior in some cases. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-01-16 19:25:58 +01:00
. ./test-lib.sh
test_expect_success 'setup repo' '
test_commit initial &&
for i in $(test_seq 1 3)
do
mkdir f$i &&
for j in $(test_seq 1 3)
do
mkdir f$i/f$j &&
echo $j >f$i/f$j/data.txt || return 1
list-objects: consume sparse tree walk When creating a pack-file using 'git pack-objects --revs' we provide a list of interesting and uninteresting commits. For example, a push operation would make the local topic branch be interesting and the known remote refs as uninteresting. We want to discover the set of new objects to send to the server as a thin pack. We walk these commits until we discover a frontier of commits such that every commit walk starting at interesting commits ends in a root commit or unintersting commit. We then need to discover which non-commit objects are reachable from uninteresting commits. This commit walk is not changing during this series. The mark_edges_uninteresting() method in list-objects.c iterates on the commit list and does the following: * If the commit is UNINTERSTING, then mark its root tree and every object it can reach as UNINTERESTING. * If the commit is interesting, then mark the root tree of every UNINTERSTING parent (and all objects that tree can reach) as UNINTERSTING. At the very end, we repeat the process on every commit directly given to the revision walk from stdin. This helps ensure we properly cover shallow commits that otherwise were not included in the frontier. The logic to recursively follow trees is in the mark_tree_uninteresting() method in revision.c. The algorithm avoids duplicate work by not recursing into trees that are already marked UNINTERSTING. Add a new 'sparse' option to the mark_edges_uninteresting() method that performs this logic in a slightly different way. As we iterate over the commits, we add all of the root trees to an oidset. Then, call mark_trees_uninteresting_sparse() on that oidset. Note that we include interesting trees in this process. The current implementation of mark_trees_unintersting_sparse() will walk the same trees as the old logic, but this will be replaced in a later change. Add a '--sparse' flag in 'git pack-objects' to call this new logic. Add a new test script t/t5322-pack-objects-sparse.sh that tests this option. The tests currently demonstrate that the resulting object list is the same as the old algorithm. This includes a case where both algorithms pack an object that is not needed by a remote due to limits on the explored set of trees. When the sparse algorithm is changed in a later commit, we will add a test that demonstrates a change of behavior in some cases. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-01-16 19:25:58 +01:00
done
done &&
git add . &&
git commit -m "Initialized trees" &&
for i in $(test_seq 1 3)
do
git checkout -b topic$i main &&
list-objects: consume sparse tree walk When creating a pack-file using 'git pack-objects --revs' we provide a list of interesting and uninteresting commits. For example, a push operation would make the local topic branch be interesting and the known remote refs as uninteresting. We want to discover the set of new objects to send to the server as a thin pack. We walk these commits until we discover a frontier of commits such that every commit walk starting at interesting commits ends in a root commit or unintersting commit. We then need to discover which non-commit objects are reachable from uninteresting commits. This commit walk is not changing during this series. The mark_edges_uninteresting() method in list-objects.c iterates on the commit list and does the following: * If the commit is UNINTERSTING, then mark its root tree and every object it can reach as UNINTERESTING. * If the commit is interesting, then mark the root tree of every UNINTERSTING parent (and all objects that tree can reach) as UNINTERSTING. At the very end, we repeat the process on every commit directly given to the revision walk from stdin. This helps ensure we properly cover shallow commits that otherwise were not included in the frontier. The logic to recursively follow trees is in the mark_tree_uninteresting() method in revision.c. The algorithm avoids duplicate work by not recursing into trees that are already marked UNINTERSTING. Add a new 'sparse' option to the mark_edges_uninteresting() method that performs this logic in a slightly different way. As we iterate over the commits, we add all of the root trees to an oidset. Then, call mark_trees_uninteresting_sparse() on that oidset. Note that we include interesting trees in this process. The current implementation of mark_trees_unintersting_sparse() will walk the same trees as the old logic, but this will be replaced in a later change. Add a '--sparse' flag in 'git pack-objects' to call this new logic. Add a new test script t/t5322-pack-objects-sparse.sh that tests this option. The tests currently demonstrate that the resulting object list is the same as the old algorithm. This includes a case where both algorithms pack an object that is not needed by a remote due to limits on the explored set of trees. When the sparse algorithm is changed in a later commit, we will add a test that demonstrates a change of behavior in some cases. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-01-16 19:25:58 +01:00
echo change-$i >f$i/f$i/data.txt &&
git commit -a -m "Changed f$i/f$i/data.txt" || return 1
list-objects: consume sparse tree walk When creating a pack-file using 'git pack-objects --revs' we provide a list of interesting and uninteresting commits. For example, a push operation would make the local topic branch be interesting and the known remote refs as uninteresting. We want to discover the set of new objects to send to the server as a thin pack. We walk these commits until we discover a frontier of commits such that every commit walk starting at interesting commits ends in a root commit or unintersting commit. We then need to discover which non-commit objects are reachable from uninteresting commits. This commit walk is not changing during this series. The mark_edges_uninteresting() method in list-objects.c iterates on the commit list and does the following: * If the commit is UNINTERSTING, then mark its root tree and every object it can reach as UNINTERESTING. * If the commit is interesting, then mark the root tree of every UNINTERSTING parent (and all objects that tree can reach) as UNINTERSTING. At the very end, we repeat the process on every commit directly given to the revision walk from stdin. This helps ensure we properly cover shallow commits that otherwise were not included in the frontier. The logic to recursively follow trees is in the mark_tree_uninteresting() method in revision.c. The algorithm avoids duplicate work by not recursing into trees that are already marked UNINTERSTING. Add a new 'sparse' option to the mark_edges_uninteresting() method that performs this logic in a slightly different way. As we iterate over the commits, we add all of the root trees to an oidset. Then, call mark_trees_uninteresting_sparse() on that oidset. Note that we include interesting trees in this process. The current implementation of mark_trees_unintersting_sparse() will walk the same trees as the old logic, but this will be replaced in a later change. Add a '--sparse' flag in 'git pack-objects' to call this new logic. Add a new test script t/t5322-pack-objects-sparse.sh that tests this option. The tests currently demonstrate that the resulting object list is the same as the old algorithm. This includes a case where both algorithms pack an object that is not needed by a remote due to limits on the explored set of trees. When the sparse algorithm is changed in a later commit, we will add a test that demonstrates a change of behavior in some cases. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-01-16 19:25:58 +01:00
done &&
cat >packinput.txt <<-EOF &&
topic1
^topic2
^topic3
EOF
git rev-parse \
topic1 \
topic1^{tree} \
topic1:f1 \
topic1:f1/f1 \
topic1:f1/f1/data.txt | sort >expect_objects.txt
'
test_expect_success 'non-sparse pack-objects' '
git pack-objects --stdout --revs --no-sparse <packinput.txt >nonsparse.pack &&
list-objects: consume sparse tree walk When creating a pack-file using 'git pack-objects --revs' we provide a list of interesting and uninteresting commits. For example, a push operation would make the local topic branch be interesting and the known remote refs as uninteresting. We want to discover the set of new objects to send to the server as a thin pack. We walk these commits until we discover a frontier of commits such that every commit walk starting at interesting commits ends in a root commit or unintersting commit. We then need to discover which non-commit objects are reachable from uninteresting commits. This commit walk is not changing during this series. The mark_edges_uninteresting() method in list-objects.c iterates on the commit list and does the following: * If the commit is UNINTERSTING, then mark its root tree and every object it can reach as UNINTERESTING. * If the commit is interesting, then mark the root tree of every UNINTERSTING parent (and all objects that tree can reach) as UNINTERSTING. At the very end, we repeat the process on every commit directly given to the revision walk from stdin. This helps ensure we properly cover shallow commits that otherwise were not included in the frontier. The logic to recursively follow trees is in the mark_tree_uninteresting() method in revision.c. The algorithm avoids duplicate work by not recursing into trees that are already marked UNINTERSTING. Add a new 'sparse' option to the mark_edges_uninteresting() method that performs this logic in a slightly different way. As we iterate over the commits, we add all of the root trees to an oidset. Then, call mark_trees_uninteresting_sparse() on that oidset. Note that we include interesting trees in this process. The current implementation of mark_trees_unintersting_sparse() will walk the same trees as the old logic, but this will be replaced in a later change. Add a '--sparse' flag in 'git pack-objects' to call this new logic. Add a new test script t/t5322-pack-objects-sparse.sh that tests this option. The tests currently demonstrate that the resulting object list is the same as the old algorithm. This includes a case where both algorithms pack an object that is not needed by a remote due to limits on the explored set of trees. When the sparse algorithm is changed in a later commit, we will add a test that demonstrates a change of behavior in some cases. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-01-16 19:25:58 +01:00
git index-pack -o nonsparse.idx nonsparse.pack &&
git show-index <nonsparse.idx | awk "{print \$2}" >nonsparse_objects.txt &&
test_cmp expect_objects.txt nonsparse_objects.txt
'
test_expect_success 'sparse pack-objects' '
git pack-objects --stdout --revs --sparse <packinput.txt >sparse.pack &&
git index-pack -o sparse.idx sparse.pack &&
git show-index <sparse.idx | awk "{print \$2}" >sparse_objects.txt &&
test_cmp expect_objects.txt sparse_objects.txt
'
test_expect_success 'duplicate a folder from f3 and commit to topic1' '
git checkout topic1 &&
echo change-3 >f3/f3/data.txt &&
git commit -a -m "Changed f3/f3/data.txt" &&
git rev-parse \
topic1~1 \
topic1~1^{tree} \
topic1^{tree} \
topic1 \
topic1:f1 \
topic1:f1/f1 \
topic1:f1/f1/data.txt | sort >required_objects.txt
'
test_expect_success 'non-sparse pack-objects' '
git pack-objects --stdout --revs --no-sparse <packinput.txt >nonsparse.pack &&
list-objects: consume sparse tree walk When creating a pack-file using 'git pack-objects --revs' we provide a list of interesting and uninteresting commits. For example, a push operation would make the local topic branch be interesting and the known remote refs as uninteresting. We want to discover the set of new objects to send to the server as a thin pack. We walk these commits until we discover a frontier of commits such that every commit walk starting at interesting commits ends in a root commit or unintersting commit. We then need to discover which non-commit objects are reachable from uninteresting commits. This commit walk is not changing during this series. The mark_edges_uninteresting() method in list-objects.c iterates on the commit list and does the following: * If the commit is UNINTERSTING, then mark its root tree and every object it can reach as UNINTERESTING. * If the commit is interesting, then mark the root tree of every UNINTERSTING parent (and all objects that tree can reach) as UNINTERSTING. At the very end, we repeat the process on every commit directly given to the revision walk from stdin. This helps ensure we properly cover shallow commits that otherwise were not included in the frontier. The logic to recursively follow trees is in the mark_tree_uninteresting() method in revision.c. The algorithm avoids duplicate work by not recursing into trees that are already marked UNINTERSTING. Add a new 'sparse' option to the mark_edges_uninteresting() method that performs this logic in a slightly different way. As we iterate over the commits, we add all of the root trees to an oidset. Then, call mark_trees_uninteresting_sparse() on that oidset. Note that we include interesting trees in this process. The current implementation of mark_trees_unintersting_sparse() will walk the same trees as the old logic, but this will be replaced in a later change. Add a '--sparse' flag in 'git pack-objects' to call this new logic. Add a new test script t/t5322-pack-objects-sparse.sh that tests this option. The tests currently demonstrate that the resulting object list is the same as the old algorithm. This includes a case where both algorithms pack an object that is not needed by a remote due to limits on the explored set of trees. When the sparse algorithm is changed in a later commit, we will add a test that demonstrates a change of behavior in some cases. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-01-16 19:25:58 +01:00
git index-pack -o nonsparse.idx nonsparse.pack &&
git show-index <nonsparse.idx | awk "{print \$2}" >nonsparse_objects.txt &&
comm -1 -2 required_objects.txt nonsparse_objects.txt >nonsparse_required_objects.txt &&
test_cmp required_objects.txt nonsparse_required_objects.txt
'
test_expect_success 'sparse pack-objects' '
git pack-objects --stdout --revs --sparse <packinput.txt >sparse.pack &&
git index-pack -o sparse.idx sparse.pack &&
git show-index <sparse.idx | awk "{print \$2}" >sparse_objects.txt &&
comm -1 -2 required_objects.txt sparse_objects.txt >sparse_required_objects.txt &&
test_cmp required_objects.txt sparse_required_objects.txt
'
revision: implement sparse algorithm When enumerating objects to place in a pack-file during 'git pack-objects --revs', we discover the "frontier" of commits that we care about and the boundary with commit we find uninteresting. From that point, we walk trees to discover which trees and blobs are uninteresting. Finally, we walk trees from the interesting commits to find the interesting objects that are placed in the pack. This commit introduces a new, "sparse" way to discover the uninteresting trees. We use the perspective of a single user trying to push their topic to a large repository. That user likely changed a very small fraction of the paths in their working directory, but we spend a lot of time walking all reachable trees. The way to switch the logic to work in this sparse way is to start caring about which paths introduce new trees. While it is not possible to generate a diff between the frontier boundary and all of the interesting commits, we can simulate that behavior by inspecting all of the root trees as a whole, then recursing down to the set of trees at each path. We already had taken the first step by passing an oidset to mark_trees_uninteresting_sparse(). We now create a dictionary whose keys are paths and values are oidsets. We consider the set of trees that appear at each path. While we inspect a tree, we add its subtrees to the oidsets corresponding to the tree entry's path. We also mark trees as UNINTERESTING if the tree we are parsing is UNINTERESTING. To actually improve the performance, we need to terminate our recursion. If the oidset contains only UNINTERESTING trees, then we do not continue the recursion. This avoids walking trees that are likely to not be reachable from interesting trees. If the oidset contains only interesting trees, then we will walk these trees in the final stage that collects the intersting objects to place in the pack. Thus, we only recurse if the oidset contains both interesting and UNINITERESTING trees. There are a few ways that this is not a universally better option. First, we can pack extra objects. If someone copies a subtree from one tree to another, the first tree will appear UNINTERESTING and we will not recurse to see that the subtree should also be UNINTERESTING. We will walk the new tree and see the subtree as a "new" object and add it to the pack. A test is modified to demonstrate this behavior and to verify that the new logic is being exercised. Second, we can have extra memory pressure. If instead of being a single user pushing a small topic we are a server sending new objects from across the entire working directory, then we will gain very little (the recursion will rarely terminate early) but will spend extra time maintaining the path-oidset dictionaries. Despite these potential drawbacks, the benefits of the algorithm are clear. By adding a counter to 'add_children_by_path' and 'mark_tree_contents_uninteresting', I measured the number of parsed trees for the two algorithms in a variety of repos. For git.git, I used the following input: v2.19.0 ^v2.19.0~10 Objects to pack: 550 Walked (old alg): 282 Walked (new alg): 130 For the Linux repo, I used the following input: v4.18 ^v4.18~10 Objects to pack: 518 Walked (old alg): 4,836 Walked (new alg): 188 The two repos above are rather "wide and flat" compared to other repos that I have used in the past. As a comparison, I tested an old topic branch in the Azure DevOps repo, which has a much deeper folder structure than the Linux repo. Objects to pack: 220 Walked (old alg): 22,804 Walked (new alg): 129 I used the number of walked trees the main metric above because it is consistent across multiple runs. When I ran my tests, the performance of the pack-objects command with the same options could change the end-to-end time by 10x depending on the file system being warm. However, by repeating the same test on repeat I could get more consistent timing results. The git.git and Linux tests were too fast overall (less than 0.5s) to measure an end-to-end difference. The Azure DevOps case was slow enough to see the time improve from 15s to 1s in the warm case. The cold case was 90s to 9s in my testing. These improvements will have even larger benefits in the super- large Windows repository. In our experiments, we see the "Enumerate objects" phase of pack-objects taking 60-80% of the end-to-end time of non-trivial pushes, taking longer than the network time to send the pack and the server time to verify the pack. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-01-16 19:25:59 +01:00
# Demonstrate that the algorithms differ when we copy a tree wholesale
# from one folder to another.
list-objects: consume sparse tree walk When creating a pack-file using 'git pack-objects --revs' we provide a list of interesting and uninteresting commits. For example, a push operation would make the local topic branch be interesting and the known remote refs as uninteresting. We want to discover the set of new objects to send to the server as a thin pack. We walk these commits until we discover a frontier of commits such that every commit walk starting at interesting commits ends in a root commit or unintersting commit. We then need to discover which non-commit objects are reachable from uninteresting commits. This commit walk is not changing during this series. The mark_edges_uninteresting() method in list-objects.c iterates on the commit list and does the following: * If the commit is UNINTERSTING, then mark its root tree and every object it can reach as UNINTERESTING. * If the commit is interesting, then mark the root tree of every UNINTERSTING parent (and all objects that tree can reach) as UNINTERSTING. At the very end, we repeat the process on every commit directly given to the revision walk from stdin. This helps ensure we properly cover shallow commits that otherwise were not included in the frontier. The logic to recursively follow trees is in the mark_tree_uninteresting() method in revision.c. The algorithm avoids duplicate work by not recursing into trees that are already marked UNINTERSTING. Add a new 'sparse' option to the mark_edges_uninteresting() method that performs this logic in a slightly different way. As we iterate over the commits, we add all of the root trees to an oidset. Then, call mark_trees_uninteresting_sparse() on that oidset. Note that we include interesting trees in this process. The current implementation of mark_trees_unintersting_sparse() will walk the same trees as the old logic, but this will be replaced in a later change. Add a '--sparse' flag in 'git pack-objects' to call this new logic. Add a new test script t/t5322-pack-objects-sparse.sh that tests this option. The tests currently demonstrate that the resulting object list is the same as the old algorithm. This includes a case where both algorithms pack an object that is not needed by a remote due to limits on the explored set of trees. When the sparse algorithm is changed in a later commit, we will add a test that demonstrates a change of behavior in some cases. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-01-16 19:25:58 +01:00
test_expect_success 'duplicate a folder from f1 into f3' '
mkdir f3/f4 &&
cp -r f1/f1/* f3/f4 &&
git add f3/f4 &&
git commit -m "Copied f1/f1 to f3/f4" &&
cat >packinput.txt <<-EOF &&
topic1
^topic1~1
EOF
git rev-parse \
topic1 \
topic1^{tree} \
topic1:f3 | sort >required_objects.txt
'
test_expect_success 'non-sparse pack-objects' '
revision: implement sparse algorithm When enumerating objects to place in a pack-file during 'git pack-objects --revs', we discover the "frontier" of commits that we care about and the boundary with commit we find uninteresting. From that point, we walk trees to discover which trees and blobs are uninteresting. Finally, we walk trees from the interesting commits to find the interesting objects that are placed in the pack. This commit introduces a new, "sparse" way to discover the uninteresting trees. We use the perspective of a single user trying to push their topic to a large repository. That user likely changed a very small fraction of the paths in their working directory, but we spend a lot of time walking all reachable trees. The way to switch the logic to work in this sparse way is to start caring about which paths introduce new trees. While it is not possible to generate a diff between the frontier boundary and all of the interesting commits, we can simulate that behavior by inspecting all of the root trees as a whole, then recursing down to the set of trees at each path. We already had taken the first step by passing an oidset to mark_trees_uninteresting_sparse(). We now create a dictionary whose keys are paths and values are oidsets. We consider the set of trees that appear at each path. While we inspect a tree, we add its subtrees to the oidsets corresponding to the tree entry's path. We also mark trees as UNINTERESTING if the tree we are parsing is UNINTERESTING. To actually improve the performance, we need to terminate our recursion. If the oidset contains only UNINTERESTING trees, then we do not continue the recursion. This avoids walking trees that are likely to not be reachable from interesting trees. If the oidset contains only interesting trees, then we will walk these trees in the final stage that collects the intersting objects to place in the pack. Thus, we only recurse if the oidset contains both interesting and UNINITERESTING trees. There are a few ways that this is not a universally better option. First, we can pack extra objects. If someone copies a subtree from one tree to another, the first tree will appear UNINTERESTING and we will not recurse to see that the subtree should also be UNINTERESTING. We will walk the new tree and see the subtree as a "new" object and add it to the pack. A test is modified to demonstrate this behavior and to verify that the new logic is being exercised. Second, we can have extra memory pressure. If instead of being a single user pushing a small topic we are a server sending new objects from across the entire working directory, then we will gain very little (the recursion will rarely terminate early) but will spend extra time maintaining the path-oidset dictionaries. Despite these potential drawbacks, the benefits of the algorithm are clear. By adding a counter to 'add_children_by_path' and 'mark_tree_contents_uninteresting', I measured the number of parsed trees for the two algorithms in a variety of repos. For git.git, I used the following input: v2.19.0 ^v2.19.0~10 Objects to pack: 550 Walked (old alg): 282 Walked (new alg): 130 For the Linux repo, I used the following input: v4.18 ^v4.18~10 Objects to pack: 518 Walked (old alg): 4,836 Walked (new alg): 188 The two repos above are rather "wide and flat" compared to other repos that I have used in the past. As a comparison, I tested an old topic branch in the Azure DevOps repo, which has a much deeper folder structure than the Linux repo. Objects to pack: 220 Walked (old alg): 22,804 Walked (new alg): 129 I used the number of walked trees the main metric above because it is consistent across multiple runs. When I ran my tests, the performance of the pack-objects command with the same options could change the end-to-end time by 10x depending on the file system being warm. However, by repeating the same test on repeat I could get more consistent timing results. The git.git and Linux tests were too fast overall (less than 0.5s) to measure an end-to-end difference. The Azure DevOps case was slow enough to see the time improve from 15s to 1s in the warm case. The cold case was 90s to 9s in my testing. These improvements will have even larger benefits in the super- large Windows repository. In our experiments, we see the "Enumerate objects" phase of pack-objects taking 60-80% of the end-to-end time of non-trivial pushes, taking longer than the network time to send the pack and the server time to verify the pack. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-01-16 19:25:59 +01:00
git pack-objects --stdout --revs --no-sparse <packinput.txt >nonsparse.pack &&
list-objects: consume sparse tree walk When creating a pack-file using 'git pack-objects --revs' we provide a list of interesting and uninteresting commits. For example, a push operation would make the local topic branch be interesting and the known remote refs as uninteresting. We want to discover the set of new objects to send to the server as a thin pack. We walk these commits until we discover a frontier of commits such that every commit walk starting at interesting commits ends in a root commit or unintersting commit. We then need to discover which non-commit objects are reachable from uninteresting commits. This commit walk is not changing during this series. The mark_edges_uninteresting() method in list-objects.c iterates on the commit list and does the following: * If the commit is UNINTERSTING, then mark its root tree and every object it can reach as UNINTERESTING. * If the commit is interesting, then mark the root tree of every UNINTERSTING parent (and all objects that tree can reach) as UNINTERSTING. At the very end, we repeat the process on every commit directly given to the revision walk from stdin. This helps ensure we properly cover shallow commits that otherwise were not included in the frontier. The logic to recursively follow trees is in the mark_tree_uninteresting() method in revision.c. The algorithm avoids duplicate work by not recursing into trees that are already marked UNINTERSTING. Add a new 'sparse' option to the mark_edges_uninteresting() method that performs this logic in a slightly different way. As we iterate over the commits, we add all of the root trees to an oidset. Then, call mark_trees_uninteresting_sparse() on that oidset. Note that we include interesting trees in this process. The current implementation of mark_trees_unintersting_sparse() will walk the same trees as the old logic, but this will be replaced in a later change. Add a '--sparse' flag in 'git pack-objects' to call this new logic. Add a new test script t/t5322-pack-objects-sparse.sh that tests this option. The tests currently demonstrate that the resulting object list is the same as the old algorithm. This includes a case where both algorithms pack an object that is not needed by a remote due to limits on the explored set of trees. When the sparse algorithm is changed in a later commit, we will add a test that demonstrates a change of behavior in some cases. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-01-16 19:25:58 +01:00
git index-pack -o nonsparse.idx nonsparse.pack &&
git show-index <nonsparse.idx | awk "{print \$2}" >nonsparse_objects.txt &&
comm -1 -2 required_objects.txt nonsparse_objects.txt >nonsparse_required_objects.txt &&
test_cmp required_objects.txt nonsparse_required_objects.txt
'
# --sparse is enabled by default by pack.useSparse
list-objects: consume sparse tree walk When creating a pack-file using 'git pack-objects --revs' we provide a list of interesting and uninteresting commits. For example, a push operation would make the local topic branch be interesting and the known remote refs as uninteresting. We want to discover the set of new objects to send to the server as a thin pack. We walk these commits until we discover a frontier of commits such that every commit walk starting at interesting commits ends in a root commit or unintersting commit. We then need to discover which non-commit objects are reachable from uninteresting commits. This commit walk is not changing during this series. The mark_edges_uninteresting() method in list-objects.c iterates on the commit list and does the following: * If the commit is UNINTERSTING, then mark its root tree and every object it can reach as UNINTERESTING. * If the commit is interesting, then mark the root tree of every UNINTERSTING parent (and all objects that tree can reach) as UNINTERSTING. At the very end, we repeat the process on every commit directly given to the revision walk from stdin. This helps ensure we properly cover shallow commits that otherwise were not included in the frontier. The logic to recursively follow trees is in the mark_tree_uninteresting() method in revision.c. The algorithm avoids duplicate work by not recursing into trees that are already marked UNINTERSTING. Add a new 'sparse' option to the mark_edges_uninteresting() method that performs this logic in a slightly different way. As we iterate over the commits, we add all of the root trees to an oidset. Then, call mark_trees_uninteresting_sparse() on that oidset. Note that we include interesting trees in this process. The current implementation of mark_trees_unintersting_sparse() will walk the same trees as the old logic, but this will be replaced in a later change. Add a '--sparse' flag in 'git pack-objects' to call this new logic. Add a new test script t/t5322-pack-objects-sparse.sh that tests this option. The tests currently demonstrate that the resulting object list is the same as the old algorithm. This includes a case where both algorithms pack an object that is not needed by a remote due to limits on the explored set of trees. When the sparse algorithm is changed in a later commit, we will add a test that demonstrates a change of behavior in some cases. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-01-16 19:25:58 +01:00
test_expect_success 'sparse pack-objects' '
GIT_TEST_PACK_SPARSE=-1 &&
revision: implement sparse algorithm When enumerating objects to place in a pack-file during 'git pack-objects --revs', we discover the "frontier" of commits that we care about and the boundary with commit we find uninteresting. From that point, we walk trees to discover which trees and blobs are uninteresting. Finally, we walk trees from the interesting commits to find the interesting objects that are placed in the pack. This commit introduces a new, "sparse" way to discover the uninteresting trees. We use the perspective of a single user trying to push their topic to a large repository. That user likely changed a very small fraction of the paths in their working directory, but we spend a lot of time walking all reachable trees. The way to switch the logic to work in this sparse way is to start caring about which paths introduce new trees. While it is not possible to generate a diff between the frontier boundary and all of the interesting commits, we can simulate that behavior by inspecting all of the root trees as a whole, then recursing down to the set of trees at each path. We already had taken the first step by passing an oidset to mark_trees_uninteresting_sparse(). We now create a dictionary whose keys are paths and values are oidsets. We consider the set of trees that appear at each path. While we inspect a tree, we add its subtrees to the oidsets corresponding to the tree entry's path. We also mark trees as UNINTERESTING if the tree we are parsing is UNINTERESTING. To actually improve the performance, we need to terminate our recursion. If the oidset contains only UNINTERESTING trees, then we do not continue the recursion. This avoids walking trees that are likely to not be reachable from interesting trees. If the oidset contains only interesting trees, then we will walk these trees in the final stage that collects the intersting objects to place in the pack. Thus, we only recurse if the oidset contains both interesting and UNINITERESTING trees. There are a few ways that this is not a universally better option. First, we can pack extra objects. If someone copies a subtree from one tree to another, the first tree will appear UNINTERESTING and we will not recurse to see that the subtree should also be UNINTERESTING. We will walk the new tree and see the subtree as a "new" object and add it to the pack. A test is modified to demonstrate this behavior and to verify that the new logic is being exercised. Second, we can have extra memory pressure. If instead of being a single user pushing a small topic we are a server sending new objects from across the entire working directory, then we will gain very little (the recursion will rarely terminate early) but will spend extra time maintaining the path-oidset dictionaries. Despite these potential drawbacks, the benefits of the algorithm are clear. By adding a counter to 'add_children_by_path' and 'mark_tree_contents_uninteresting', I measured the number of parsed trees for the two algorithms in a variety of repos. For git.git, I used the following input: v2.19.0 ^v2.19.0~10 Objects to pack: 550 Walked (old alg): 282 Walked (new alg): 130 For the Linux repo, I used the following input: v4.18 ^v4.18~10 Objects to pack: 518 Walked (old alg): 4,836 Walked (new alg): 188 The two repos above are rather "wide and flat" compared to other repos that I have used in the past. As a comparison, I tested an old topic branch in the Azure DevOps repo, which has a much deeper folder structure than the Linux repo. Objects to pack: 220 Walked (old alg): 22,804 Walked (new alg): 129 I used the number of walked trees the main metric above because it is consistent across multiple runs. When I ran my tests, the performance of the pack-objects command with the same options could change the end-to-end time by 10x depending on the file system being warm. However, by repeating the same test on repeat I could get more consistent timing results. The git.git and Linux tests were too fast overall (less than 0.5s) to measure an end-to-end difference. The Azure DevOps case was slow enough to see the time improve from 15s to 1s in the warm case. The cold case was 90s to 9s in my testing. These improvements will have even larger benefits in the super- large Windows repository. In our experiments, we see the "Enumerate objects" phase of pack-objects taking 60-80% of the end-to-end time of non-trivial pushes, taking longer than the network time to send the pack and the server time to verify the pack. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-01-16 19:25:59 +01:00
git rev-parse \
topic1 \
topic1^{tree} \
topic1:f3 \
topic1:f3/f4 \
topic1:f3/f4/data.txt | sort >expect_sparse_objects.txt &&
git pack-objects --stdout --revs <packinput.txt >sparse.pack &&
list-objects: consume sparse tree walk When creating a pack-file using 'git pack-objects --revs' we provide a list of interesting and uninteresting commits. For example, a push operation would make the local topic branch be interesting and the known remote refs as uninteresting. We want to discover the set of new objects to send to the server as a thin pack. We walk these commits until we discover a frontier of commits such that every commit walk starting at interesting commits ends in a root commit or unintersting commit. We then need to discover which non-commit objects are reachable from uninteresting commits. This commit walk is not changing during this series. The mark_edges_uninteresting() method in list-objects.c iterates on the commit list and does the following: * If the commit is UNINTERSTING, then mark its root tree and every object it can reach as UNINTERESTING. * If the commit is interesting, then mark the root tree of every UNINTERSTING parent (and all objects that tree can reach) as UNINTERSTING. At the very end, we repeat the process on every commit directly given to the revision walk from stdin. This helps ensure we properly cover shallow commits that otherwise were not included in the frontier. The logic to recursively follow trees is in the mark_tree_uninteresting() method in revision.c. The algorithm avoids duplicate work by not recursing into trees that are already marked UNINTERSTING. Add a new 'sparse' option to the mark_edges_uninteresting() method that performs this logic in a slightly different way. As we iterate over the commits, we add all of the root trees to an oidset. Then, call mark_trees_uninteresting_sparse() on that oidset. Note that we include interesting trees in this process. The current implementation of mark_trees_unintersting_sparse() will walk the same trees as the old logic, but this will be replaced in a later change. Add a '--sparse' flag in 'git pack-objects' to call this new logic. Add a new test script t/t5322-pack-objects-sparse.sh that tests this option. The tests currently demonstrate that the resulting object list is the same as the old algorithm. This includes a case where both algorithms pack an object that is not needed by a remote due to limits on the explored set of trees. When the sparse algorithm is changed in a later commit, we will add a test that demonstrates a change of behavior in some cases. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-01-16 19:25:58 +01:00
git index-pack -o sparse.idx sparse.pack &&
git show-index <sparse.idx | awk "{print \$2}" >sparse_objects.txt &&
revision: implement sparse algorithm When enumerating objects to place in a pack-file during 'git pack-objects --revs', we discover the "frontier" of commits that we care about and the boundary with commit we find uninteresting. From that point, we walk trees to discover which trees and blobs are uninteresting. Finally, we walk trees from the interesting commits to find the interesting objects that are placed in the pack. This commit introduces a new, "sparse" way to discover the uninteresting trees. We use the perspective of a single user trying to push their topic to a large repository. That user likely changed a very small fraction of the paths in their working directory, but we spend a lot of time walking all reachable trees. The way to switch the logic to work in this sparse way is to start caring about which paths introduce new trees. While it is not possible to generate a diff between the frontier boundary and all of the interesting commits, we can simulate that behavior by inspecting all of the root trees as a whole, then recursing down to the set of trees at each path. We already had taken the first step by passing an oidset to mark_trees_uninteresting_sparse(). We now create a dictionary whose keys are paths and values are oidsets. We consider the set of trees that appear at each path. While we inspect a tree, we add its subtrees to the oidsets corresponding to the tree entry's path. We also mark trees as UNINTERESTING if the tree we are parsing is UNINTERESTING. To actually improve the performance, we need to terminate our recursion. If the oidset contains only UNINTERESTING trees, then we do not continue the recursion. This avoids walking trees that are likely to not be reachable from interesting trees. If the oidset contains only interesting trees, then we will walk these trees in the final stage that collects the intersting objects to place in the pack. Thus, we only recurse if the oidset contains both interesting and UNINITERESTING trees. There are a few ways that this is not a universally better option. First, we can pack extra objects. If someone copies a subtree from one tree to another, the first tree will appear UNINTERESTING and we will not recurse to see that the subtree should also be UNINTERESTING. We will walk the new tree and see the subtree as a "new" object and add it to the pack. A test is modified to demonstrate this behavior and to verify that the new logic is being exercised. Second, we can have extra memory pressure. If instead of being a single user pushing a small topic we are a server sending new objects from across the entire working directory, then we will gain very little (the recursion will rarely terminate early) but will spend extra time maintaining the path-oidset dictionaries. Despite these potential drawbacks, the benefits of the algorithm are clear. By adding a counter to 'add_children_by_path' and 'mark_tree_contents_uninteresting', I measured the number of parsed trees for the two algorithms in a variety of repos. For git.git, I used the following input: v2.19.0 ^v2.19.0~10 Objects to pack: 550 Walked (old alg): 282 Walked (new alg): 130 For the Linux repo, I used the following input: v4.18 ^v4.18~10 Objects to pack: 518 Walked (old alg): 4,836 Walked (new alg): 188 The two repos above are rather "wide and flat" compared to other repos that I have used in the past. As a comparison, I tested an old topic branch in the Azure DevOps repo, which has a much deeper folder structure than the Linux repo. Objects to pack: 220 Walked (old alg): 22,804 Walked (new alg): 129 I used the number of walked trees the main metric above because it is consistent across multiple runs. When I ran my tests, the performance of the pack-objects command with the same options could change the end-to-end time by 10x depending on the file system being warm. However, by repeating the same test on repeat I could get more consistent timing results. The git.git and Linux tests were too fast overall (less than 0.5s) to measure an end-to-end difference. The Azure DevOps case was slow enough to see the time improve from 15s to 1s in the warm case. The cold case was 90s to 9s in my testing. These improvements will have even larger benefits in the super- large Windows repository. In our experiments, we see the "Enumerate objects" phase of pack-objects taking 60-80% of the end-to-end time of non-trivial pushes, taking longer than the network time to send the pack and the server time to verify the pack. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-01-16 19:25:59 +01:00
test_cmp expect_sparse_objects.txt sparse_objects.txt
list-objects: consume sparse tree walk When creating a pack-file using 'git pack-objects --revs' we provide a list of interesting and uninteresting commits. For example, a push operation would make the local topic branch be interesting and the known remote refs as uninteresting. We want to discover the set of new objects to send to the server as a thin pack. We walk these commits until we discover a frontier of commits such that every commit walk starting at interesting commits ends in a root commit or unintersting commit. We then need to discover which non-commit objects are reachable from uninteresting commits. This commit walk is not changing during this series. The mark_edges_uninteresting() method in list-objects.c iterates on the commit list and does the following: * If the commit is UNINTERSTING, then mark its root tree and every object it can reach as UNINTERESTING. * If the commit is interesting, then mark the root tree of every UNINTERSTING parent (and all objects that tree can reach) as UNINTERSTING. At the very end, we repeat the process on every commit directly given to the revision walk from stdin. This helps ensure we properly cover shallow commits that otherwise were not included in the frontier. The logic to recursively follow trees is in the mark_tree_uninteresting() method in revision.c. The algorithm avoids duplicate work by not recursing into trees that are already marked UNINTERSTING. Add a new 'sparse' option to the mark_edges_uninteresting() method that performs this logic in a slightly different way. As we iterate over the commits, we add all of the root trees to an oidset. Then, call mark_trees_uninteresting_sparse() on that oidset. Note that we include interesting trees in this process. The current implementation of mark_trees_unintersting_sparse() will walk the same trees as the old logic, but this will be replaced in a later change. Add a '--sparse' flag in 'git pack-objects' to call this new logic. Add a new test script t/t5322-pack-objects-sparse.sh that tests this option. The tests currently demonstrate that the resulting object list is the same as the old algorithm. This includes a case where both algorithms pack an object that is not needed by a remote due to limits on the explored set of trees. When the sparse algorithm is changed in a later commit, we will add a test that demonstrates a change of behavior in some cases. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-01-16 19:25:58 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'pack.useSparse enables algorithm' '
git config pack.useSparse true &&
git pack-objects --stdout --revs <packinput.txt >sparse.pack &&
git index-pack -o sparse.idx sparse.pack &&
git show-index <sparse.idx | awk "{print \$2}" >sparse_objects.txt &&
test_cmp expect_sparse_objects.txt sparse_objects.txt
'
test_expect_success 'pack.useSparse overridden' '
git pack-objects --stdout --revs --no-sparse <packinput.txt >sparse.pack &&
git index-pack -o sparse.idx sparse.pack &&
git show-index <sparse.idx | awk "{print \$2}" >sparse_objects.txt &&
test_cmp required_objects.txt sparse_objects.txt
'
list-objects: consume sparse tree walk When creating a pack-file using 'git pack-objects --revs' we provide a list of interesting and uninteresting commits. For example, a push operation would make the local topic branch be interesting and the known remote refs as uninteresting. We want to discover the set of new objects to send to the server as a thin pack. We walk these commits until we discover a frontier of commits such that every commit walk starting at interesting commits ends in a root commit or unintersting commit. We then need to discover which non-commit objects are reachable from uninteresting commits. This commit walk is not changing during this series. The mark_edges_uninteresting() method in list-objects.c iterates on the commit list and does the following: * If the commit is UNINTERSTING, then mark its root tree and every object it can reach as UNINTERESTING. * If the commit is interesting, then mark the root tree of every UNINTERSTING parent (and all objects that tree can reach) as UNINTERSTING. At the very end, we repeat the process on every commit directly given to the revision walk from stdin. This helps ensure we properly cover shallow commits that otherwise were not included in the frontier. The logic to recursively follow trees is in the mark_tree_uninteresting() method in revision.c. The algorithm avoids duplicate work by not recursing into trees that are already marked UNINTERSTING. Add a new 'sparse' option to the mark_edges_uninteresting() method that performs this logic in a slightly different way. As we iterate over the commits, we add all of the root trees to an oidset. Then, call mark_trees_uninteresting_sparse() on that oidset. Note that we include interesting trees in this process. The current implementation of mark_trees_unintersting_sparse() will walk the same trees as the old logic, but this will be replaced in a later change. Add a '--sparse' flag in 'git pack-objects' to call this new logic. Add a new test script t/t5322-pack-objects-sparse.sh that tests this option. The tests currently demonstrate that the resulting object list is the same as the old algorithm. This includes a case where both algorithms pack an object that is not needed by a remote due to limits on the explored set of trees. When the sparse algorithm is changed in a later commit, we will add a test that demonstrates a change of behavior in some cases. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-01-16 19:25:58 +01:00
test_done