Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 03:32:00PM +0200, Toon Claes wrote: >> This series adds the git-last-modified(1) to feed this view. In the past >> the subcommand was proposed[1] to be named git-blame-tree(1). This >> version is based on the patches shared by the kind people at GitHub[2]. > > Sorry for completely dropping this from my review queue. Let me try and > give it a read... No worries, we all got work to do ;) >> What is different from the series shared by GitHub: >> >> * Renamed the subcommand from `blame-tree` to `last-modified`. There was >> some consensus[5] this name works better, so let's give it a try and >> see how this name feels. > > Hmmph. I prefer the "blame-tree" name personally, but I am (a) biased, > and (b) used to it over "last-modified", so I don't think my preference > or bias should count for much here. Well, for what it's worth I like "blame-tree" more as well. But didn't feel strong enough to push it through. >> * Patches for --max-depth are excluded. I think it's a separate topic to >> discuss and I'm not sure it needs to be part of series anyway. The >> main patch was submitted in the previous attempt[3] and if people >> consider it valuable, I'm happy to discuss that in a separate patch >> series. > > Yeah, makes sense. I might be revisiting this, because recently I've integrating the WIP command in our tech stack I noticed having this option would be useful/required. >> * The last-modified command isn't recursive by default. If you want >> recurse into subtrees, you need to pass `-r`. > > OK. > >> * The patches in 'tb/blame-tree' at Taylor's fork[4] implements a >> caching layer. This feature reads/writes cached results in >> `.git/blame-tree/<hash>.btc`. To keep this series to a reviewable >> size, that feature is excluded from this series. I think it's better >> to submit this as a separate series. > > Makes sense; the caching feature was primarily implemented by Stolee and > I think for our purposes here can be considered additive and not > essential to the basic functionality of this new command. For what it's > worth, I *would* like[^1] to see those features sent to the list at some > point, but I agree that they are a significant source of additional > complexity. So punting on them for now seems like the right direction to > me. > > [^1]: My ulterior motive here would be to eventually ditch GitHub's > "blame-tree" command entirely and remove it from GitHub's diff to > upstream. I'm happy to help however I can with that effort once this > series lands. Obviously. I know how it goes, more code maintained by the community is better for everyone. >> * Squashed various commits together. Like they introduced a flag >> `--go-faster`, which later became the default and only implementation. >> That story was wrapped up in a single commit. > > Perfect, thank you. I figured that we would not want to keep temporary > measures around like the "--go-faster" flag, but I also figured that > they may be helpful in unpacking the history of this command, hence why > I sent them in the first place. I wasn't sure about this. I've had a hard time unraveling what in the 55 patches in your branch was valuable and what could be squashed into other commits. >> * Dropped the patches that attempt to increase performance for tree >> entries that have not been updated in a long time. In my testing I've >> seen both performance improvements *and* degradation with these >> changes: >> >> Test HEAD~ HEAD >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> 8020.1: top-level last-modified 4.52(4.38+0.11) 2.03(1.93+0.08) -55.1% >> 8020.2: top-level recursive last-modified 5.79(5.64+0.11) 8.34(8.17+0.11) +44.0% >> 8020.3: subdir last-modified 0.15(0.09+0.06) 0.19(0.14+0.06) +26.7% >> >> Before we include these patches, I want to make sure these changes >> have positive impact in all/most scenarios. This can happen in a >> separate series. > > Hmm. It's been long enough that I honestly don't remember the details > here, but I agree that this is worth looking into at some point in the > future. I've had this patch included in version 2[1]. I'd love to include it, but it didn't give the results we were expecting. Over time I became more confortable with these changes. Let me see if I can get more insights about it. >> I've set myself as the author and added Based-on-patch-by trailers to >> credit the original authors. Let me know if you disagree. > > I can't speak for the other authors of this command, but I have no issue > being ~~blamed~~ credited with a "Based-on-patch-by" trailer ;-). > >> Again thanks to Taylor and the people at GitHub for sharing these >> patches. I hope we can work together to get this upstreamed. > > Ditto. <3 [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20250523-toon-new-blame-tree-v2-4-101e4ca4c1c9@xxxxxxxxx/ -- Cheers, Toon
