mirror of
https://github.com/git/git
synced 2024-10-06 00:29:28 +00:00
f1c903debd
Optimize the very slow "coccicheck" target to take advantage of
incremental rebuilding, and fix outstanding dependency problems with
the existing rule.
The rule is now faster both on the initial run as we can make better
use of GNU make's parallelism than the old ad-hoc combination of
make's parallelism combined with $(SPATCH_BATCH_SIZE) and/or the
"--jobs" argument to "spatch(1)".
It also makes us *much* faster when incrementally building, it's now
viable to "make coccicheck" as topic branches are merged down.
The rule didn't use FORCE (or its equivalents) before, so a:
make coccicheck
make coccicheck
Would report nothing to do on the second iteration. But all of our
patch output depended on all $(COCCI_SOURCES) files, therefore e.g.:
make -W grep.c coccicheck
Would do a full re-run, i.e. a a change in a single file would force
us to do a full re-run.
The reason for this (not the initial rationale, but my analysis) is:
* Since we create a single "*.cocci.patch+" we don't know where to
pick up where we left off, or how to incrementally merge e.g. a
"grep.c" change with an existing *.cocci.patch.
* We've been carrying forward the dependency on the *.c files since
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| buildsystems | ||
| coccinelle | ||
| completion | ||
| contacts | ||
| credential | ||
| diff-highlight | ||
| emacs | ||
| examples | ||
| fast-import | ||
| git-jump | ||
| git-shell-commands | ||
| hg-to-git | ||
| hooks | ||
| long-running-filter | ||
| mw-to-git | ||
| persistent-https | ||
| remote-helpers | ||
| scalar | ||
| stats | ||
| subtree | ||
| thunderbird-patch-inline | ||
| update-unicode | ||
| vscode | ||
| workdir | ||
| coverage-diff.sh | ||
| git-resurrect.sh | ||
| README | ||
| remotes2config.sh | ||
| rerere-train.sh | ||
Contributed Software Although these pieces are available as part of the official git source tree, they are in somewhat different status. The intention is to keep interesting tools around git here, maybe even experimental ones, to give users an easier access to them, and to give tools wider exposure, so that they can be improved faster. I am not expecting to touch these myself that much. As far as my day-to-day operation is concerned, these subdirectories are owned by their respective primary authors. I am willing to help if users of these components and the contrib/ subtree "owners" have technical/design issues to resolve, but the initiative to fix and/or enhance things _must_ be on the side of the subtree owners. IOW, I won't be actively looking for bugs and rooms for enhancements in them as the git maintainer -- I may only do so just as one of the users when I want to scratch my own itch. If you have patches to things in contrib/ area, the patch should be first sent to the primary author, and then the primary author should ack and forward it to me (git pull request is nicer). This is the same way as how I have been treating gitk, and to a lesser degree various foreign SCM interfaces, so you know the drill. I expect that things that start their life in the contrib/ area to graduate out of contrib/ once they mature, either by becoming projects on their own, or moving to the toplevel directory. On the other hand, I expect I'll be proposing removal of disused and inactive ones from time to time. If you have new things to add to this area, please first propose it on the git mailing list, and after a list discussion proves there are some general interests (it does not have to be a list-wide consensus for a tool targeted to a relatively narrow audience -- for example I do not work with projects whose upstream is svn, so I have no use for git-svn myself, but it is of general interest for people who need to interoperate with SVN repositories in a way git-svn works better than git-svnimport), submit a patch to create a subdirectory of contrib/ and put your stuff there. -jc