[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Progress report on git-blame
From: |
Óscar Fuentes |
Subject: |
Re: Progress report on git-blame |
Date: |
Sat, 25 Jan 2014 19:52:10 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
Lars Ingebrigtsen <address@hidden> writes:
[snip]
> So I'm usually just interested in a screenful of lines.
Same here.
> If we could have a version of `C-x v g' that only does "blame" for the
> current region, for instance, that would certainly fit my use case.
Hmmm...
$ # ran this twice, for warming the cache:
$ time git blame -- src/xdisp.c > /dev/null
real 2m48.232s
user 2m45.233s
sys 0m2.829s
$ # `blame' on 20 lines starting at line 1000:
$ time git blame -L 1000,+20 -- src/xdisp.c > /dev/null
real 0m10.861s
user 0m10.296s
sys 0m0.547s
:-)
Some random data points:
$ time git blame -L 1000,+100 -- src/xdisp.c > /dev/null
real 0m11.034s
user 0m10.417s
sys 0m0.599s
$ time git blame -L 1000,+1000 -- src/xdisp.c > /dev/null
real 0m15.089s
user 0m14.297s
sys 0m0.767s
$ time git blame -L 1000,+10000 -- src/xdisp.c > /dev/null
real 1m5.144s
user 1m3.555s
sys 0m1.502s
It seems that there is not a lot of a difference among blaming 20 lines
and blaming 1000.
AFAIK current `blame' functionality on VC (and on git-blame.el) is based
on working on the whole file, so implementing partial blame would
require significant changes on how VC renders the `blame' output.
However, the speed gain is so much that IMO it is worth using M-x
compile "git blame -L ...." on the simple scenario you described.
- Re: RFC - cleaning up /etc, (continued)
- Re: RFC - cleaning up /etc, David Kastrup, 2014/01/11
- Re: RFC - cleaning up /etc, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/01/11
- Progress report on git-blame (was: RFC - cleaning up /etc), David Kastrup, 2014/01/24
- Re: Progress report on git-blame (was: RFC - cleaning up /etc), Eli Zaretskii, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, David Kastrup, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, martin rudalics, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, David Kastrup, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, David Kastrup, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, David Kastrup, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame,
Óscar Fuentes <=
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, David Kastrup, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, Óscar Fuentes, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, David Kastrup, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, Aneesh Kumar K.V, 2014/01/26
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/27
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, Óscar Fuentes, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/25