From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: On tabs and spaces Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 11:26:10 +0100 Message-ID: <871tmwfigt.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <54B6FA42.6000608@yandex.ru> <87a91kfjry.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <54B793B0.8070909@yandex.ru> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1421317602 17518 80.91.229.3 (15 Jan 2015 10:26:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:26:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bruce.connor.am@gmail.com, emacs-devel To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 15 11:26:37 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YBhdM-0002oT-Kn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 11:26:36 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49940 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YBhdL-0005hB-Ok for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 05:26:35 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59454) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YBhd8-0005ex-VR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 05:26:23 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YBhd8-0006L5-6V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 05:26:22 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:32976) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YBhd8-0006L1-20 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 05:26:22 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40150 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YBhd7-0003Bb-Lx; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 05:26:21 -0500 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 55FE2E0473; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 11:26:10 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <54B793B0.8070909@yandex.ru> (Dmitry Gutov's message of "Thu, 15 Jan 2015 13:17:20 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:181284 Archived-At: Dmitry Gutov writes: > On 01/15/2015 12:57 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > >> git blame does not spend that much of its time diffing. Even if the >> difference between plain and -w has become larger with Git 2.1+ (simply >> because it wastes vastly less time with other endeavors), the bulk of >> the run time is likely spent in unpacking files from the repository >> rather than comparing them. > > Would you consider this kind of difference of no consequence? > > $ time git blame src/xdisp.c >/dev/null > > real 0m11.875s > user 0m10.753s > sys 0m0.583s > $ time git blame -w src/xdisp.c >/dev/null > > real 0m17.127s > user 0m16.779s > sys 0m0.356s Once you factor the time of C-x v g into the equation, the 5.5s of difference are not all that impressive. On my computer, previous to version 2.1 we were talking about about 5 _minutes_ of runtime. > But anyway, I distinctly remember the performance of blaming being one > of the reasons why we shouldn't do whitespace-cleaning across the > repository. I don't think it was as much the performance rather than the _convenience_ or knowledge. Most people call git blame without -w at first, and sometimes they don't even know about the option. Emacs doesn't use -w by default when doing C-x v g either IIRC. Getting it in there is somewhat cumbersome. -- David Kastrup