Skip to content

checkout: add simple check for 'git checkout -b' #325

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

checkout: add simple check for 'git checkout -b' #325

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
9 changes: 9 additions & 0 deletions builtin/checkout.c
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1713,6 +1713,15 @@ int cmd_checkout(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
opts.overlay_mode = -1;
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

On the Git mailing list, Elijah Newren wrote (reply to this):

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:04 AM Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Derrick Stolee <[email protected]>
>
> The 'git switch' command was created to separate half of the
> behavior of 'git checkout'. It specifically has the mode to
> do nothing with the index and working directory if the user
> only specifies to create a new branch and change HEAD to that
> branch. This is also the behavior most users expect from
> 'git checkout -b', but for historical reasons it also performs
> an index update by scanning the working directory. This can be
> slow for even moderately-sized repos.
>
> A performance fix for 'git checkout -b' was introduced by
> fa655d8411 (checkout: optimize "git checkout -b <new_branch>"
> 2018-08-16). That change includes details about the config
> setting checkout.optimizeNewBranch when the sparse-checkout
> feature is required. The way this change detected if this
> behavior change is safe was through the skip_merge_working_tree()
> method. This method was complex and needed to be updated
> as new options were introduced.
>
> This behavior was essentially reverted by 65f099b ("switch:
> no worktree status unless real branch switch happens"
> 2019-03-29). Instead, two members of the checkout_opts struct
> were used to distinguish between 'git checkout' and 'git switch':
>
>     * switch_branch_doing_nothing_is_ok
>     * only_merge_on_switching_branches
>
> These settings have opposite values depending on if we start
> in cmd_checkout or cmd_switch.
>
> The message for 64f099b includes "Users of big repos are
> encouraged to move to switch." Making this change while
> 'git switch' is still experimental is too aggressive.
>
> Create a happy medium between these two options by making
> 'git checkout -b <branch>' behave just like 'git switch',
> but only if we read exactly those arguments. This must
> be done in cmd_checkout to avoid the arguments being
> consumed by the option parsing logic.
>
> This differs from the previous change by fa644d8 in that
> the config option checkout.optimizeNewBranch remains
> deleted. This means that 'git checkout -b' will ignore
> the index merge even if we have a sparse-checkout file.
> While this is a behavior change for 'git checkout -b',
> it matches the behavior of 'git switch -c'.
>
> Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <[email protected]>
> ---
>  builtin/checkout.c | 9 +++++++++
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/checkout.c b/builtin/checkout.c
> index 6123f732a2..116200cf90 100644
> --- a/builtin/checkout.c
> +++ b/builtin/checkout.c
> @@ -1713,6 +1713,15 @@ int cmd_checkout(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>         opts.overlay_mode = -1;
>         opts.checkout_index = -2;    /* default on */
>         opts.checkout_worktree = -2; /* default on */
> +
> +       if (argc == 3 && !strcmp(argv[1], "-b")) {
> +               /*
> +                * User ran 'git checkout -b <branch>' and expects
> +                * the same behavior as 'git switch -c <branch>'.
> +                */
> +               opts.switch_branch_doing_nothing_is_ok = 0;
> +               opts.only_merge_on_switching_branches = 1;
> +       }
>
>         options = parse_options_dup(checkout_options);
>         options = add_common_options(&opts, options);
> --
> gitgitgadget

Nice!  Thanks for doing this; a small and localized performance hack
is much nicer than a big and non-localized one.  I also appreciate the
detailed history in the commit message.

Just for fun, I tested on linux (with a relatively fast SSD) using a
simple git-bomb repo with 10M index entries but a sparse checkout of
just one file.  'git switch -c' takes approximately 0.004s before or
after this patch.  'git checkout -b' before this patch:

$ time git checkout -b newbranch1
Switched to a new branch 'newbranch1'

real    0m13.533s
user    0m9.824s
sys    0m2.828s


After this patch:

$ time git checkout -b newbranch2
Switched to a new branch 'newbranch2'

real    0m0.003s
user    0m0.000s
sys    0m0.000s


Anyway, looks good to me.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

On the Git mailing list, Phillip Wood wrote (reply to this):

Hi Stolee

On 29/08/2019 18:01, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
> From: Derrick Stolee <[email protected]>
> 
> The 'git switch' command was created to separate half of the
> behavior of 'git checkout'. It specifically has the mode to
> do nothing with the index and working directory if the user
> only specifies to create a new branch and change HEAD to that
> branch. This is also the behavior most users expect from
> 'git checkout -b', but for historical reasons it also performs
> an index update by scanning the working directory. This can be
> slow for even moderately-sized repos.
> 
> A performance fix for 'git checkout -b' was introduced by
> fa655d8411 (checkout: optimize "git checkout -b <new_branch>"
> 2018-08-16). That change includes details about the config
> setting checkout.optimizeNewBranch when the sparse-checkout
> feature is required. The way this change detected if this
> behavior change is safe was through the skip_merge_working_tree()
> method. This method was complex and needed to be updated
> as new options were introduced.
> 
> This behavior was essentially reverted by 65f099b ("switch:
> no worktree status unless real branch switch happens"
> 2019-03-29). Instead, two members of the checkout_opts struct
> were used to distinguish between 'git checkout' and 'git switch':
> 
>      * switch_branch_doing_nothing_is_ok
>      * only_merge_on_switching_branches
> 
> These settings have opposite values depending on if we start
> in cmd_checkout or cmd_switch.
> 
> The message for 64f099b includes "Users of big repos are
> encouraged to move to switch." Making this change while
> 'git switch' is still experimental is too aggressive.
> 
> Create a happy medium between these two options by making
> 'git checkout -b <branch>' behave just like 'git switch',
> but only if we read exactly those arguments. This must
> be done in cmd_checkout to avoid the arguments being
> consumed by the option parsing logic.
> 
> This differs from the previous change by fa644d8 in that
> the config option checkout.optimizeNewBranch remains
> deleted. This means that 'git checkout -b' will ignore
> the index merge even if we have a sparse-checkout file.
> While this is a behavior change for 'git checkout -b',
> it matches the behavior of 'git switch -c'.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <[email protected]>
> ---
>   builtin/checkout.c | 9 +++++++++
>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/builtin/checkout.c b/builtin/checkout.c
> index 6123f732a2..116200cf90 100644
> --- a/builtin/checkout.c
> +++ b/builtin/checkout.c
> @@ -1713,6 +1713,15 @@ int cmd_checkout(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>   	opts.overlay_mode = -1;
>   	opts.checkout_index = -2;    /* default on */
>   	opts.checkout_worktree = -2; /* default on */
> +	
> +	if (argc == 3 && !strcmp(argv[1], "-b")) {
> +		/*
> +		 * User ran 'git checkout -b <branch>' and expects

What if the user ran 'git checkout -b<branch>'? Then argc == 2.

Best Wishes

Phillip

> +		 * the same behavior as 'git switch -c <branch>'.
> +		 */
> +		opts.switch_branch_doing_nothing_is_ok = 0;
> +		opts.only_merge_on_switching_branches = 1;
> +	}
>   
>   	options = parse_options_dup(checkout_options);
>   	options = add_common_options(&opts, options);
>

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

On the Git mailing list, Derrick Stolee wrote (reply to this):

On 8/29/2019 2:54 PM, Phillip Wood wrote:
> Hi Stolee
> 
> On 29/08/2019 18:01, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
>> +   
>> +    if (argc == 3 && !strcmp(argv[1], "-b")) {
>> +        /*
>> +         * User ran 'git checkout -b <branch>' and expects
> 
> What if the user ran 'git checkout -b<branch>'? Then argc == 2.

Good catch. I'm tempted to say "don't do that" to keep this
simple. They won't have incorrect results, just slower than
the "with space" option.

However, if there is enough interest in correcting the "-b<branch>"
case, then I can make another attempt at this.

-Stolee

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

On the Git mailing list, Pratyush Yadav wrote (reply to this):

On 29/08/19 04:07PM, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> On 8/29/2019 2:54 PM, Phillip Wood wrote:
> > Hi Stolee
> > 
> > On 29/08/2019 18:01, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
> >> +���
> >> +��� if (argc == 3 && !strcmp(argv[1], "-b")) {
> >> +������� /*
> >> +�������� * User ran 'git checkout -b <branch>' and expects
> > 
> > What if the user ran 'git checkout -b<branch>'? Then argc == 2.
> 
> Good catch. I'm tempted to say "don't do that" to keep this
> simple. They won't have incorrect results, just slower than
> the "with space" option.
> 
> However, if there is enough interest in correcting the "-b<branch>"
> case, then I can make another attempt at this.
 
You can probably do this with:

  !strncmp(argv[1], "-b", 2)

The difference is so little, might as well do it IMO.

-- 
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

On the Git mailing list, Pratyush Yadav wrote (reply to this):

On 30/08/19 02:00AM, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> On 29/08/19 04:07PM, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> > On 8/29/2019 2:54 PM, Phillip Wood wrote:
> > > Hi Stolee
> > > 
> > > On 29/08/2019 18:01, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
> > >> +���
> > >> +��� if (argc == 3 && !strcmp(argv[1], "-b")) {
> > >> +������� /*
> > >> +�������� * User ran 'git checkout -b <branch>' and expects
> > > 
> > > What if the user ran 'git checkout -b<branch>'? Then argc == 2.
> > 
> > Good catch. I'm tempted to say "don't do that" to keep this
> > simple. They won't have incorrect results, just slower than
> > the "with space" option.
> > 
> > However, if there is enough interest in correcting the "-b<branch>"
> > case, then I can make another attempt at this.
>  
> You can probably do this with:
> 
>   !strncmp(argv[1], "-b", 2)
> 
> The difference is so little, might as well do it IMO.
 
Actually, that is not correct. I took a quick look before writing this 
and missed the fact that argc == 3 is the bigger problem.

Thinking a little more about this, you can mix other options with 
checkout -b, like --track. You can also specify <start_point>.

Now I don't know enough about this optimization you are doing to know 
whether we need to optimize when these options are given, but at least 
for --track I don't see any reason not to.

So maybe you are better off using something like getopt() (warning: 
getopt modifies the input string so you probably want to duplicate it) 
if you want to support all cases. Though for this simple case you can 
probably get away by just directly scanning the argv list for "-b" 
(using strncmp instead of strcmp to account for "-b<branch-name>)

-- 
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

On the Git mailing list, Elijah Newren wrote (reply to this):

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 2:42 PM Pratyush Yadav <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 30/08/19 02:00AM, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> > On 29/08/19 04:07PM, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> > > On 8/29/2019 2:54 PM, Phillip Wood wrote:
> > > > Hi Stolee
> > > >
> > > > On 29/08/2019 18:01, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
> > > >> +
> > > >> +    if (argc == 3 && !strcmp(argv[1], "-b")) {
> > > >> +        /*
> > > >> +         * User ran 'git checkout -b <branch>' and expects
> > > >
> > > > What if the user ran 'git checkout -b<branch>'? Then argc == 2.
> > >
> > > Good catch. I'm tempted to say "don't do that" to keep this
> > > simple. They won't have incorrect results, just slower than
> > > the "with space" option.
> > >
> > > However, if there is enough interest in correcting the "-b<branch>"
> > > case, then I can make another attempt at this.
> >
> > You can probably do this with:
> >
> >   !strncmp(argv[1], "-b", 2)
> >
> > The difference is so little, might as well do it IMO.
>
> Actually, that is not correct. I took a quick look before writing this
> and missed the fact that argc == 3 is the bigger problem.
>
> Thinking a little more about this, you can mix other options with
> checkout -b, like --track. You can also specify <start_point>.
>
> Now I don't know enough about this optimization you are doing to know
> whether we need to optimize when these options are given, but at least
> for --track I don't see any reason not to.
>
> So maybe you are better off using something like getopt() (warning:
> getopt modifies the input string so you probably want to duplicate it)
> if you want to support all cases. Though for this simple case you can
> probably get away by just directly scanning the argv list for "-b"
> (using strncmp instead of strcmp to account for "-b<branch-name>)

NO.  This would be unsafe to use if <start_point> is specified.  I
think either -f or -m together with -b make no sense unless
<start_point> is specified, but if they do make sense separately, I'm
guessing this hack should not be used with those flags.  And
additional flags may appear in the future that should not be used
together with this hack.

Personally, although I understand the desire to support any possible
cases in general, *this is a performance hack*.  As such, it should be
as simple and localized as possible.  I don't think supporting
old-style stuck flags (-b$BRANCH) is worth complicating this.  I'm
even leery of adding support for --track (do any users of huge repos
use -b with --track?  Does anyone at all use --track anymore?  I'm not
sure I've ever seen any user use that flag in the last 10 years other
than myself.)  Besides, in the *worst* possible case, the command the
user specifies works just fine...it just takes a little longer.  My
opinion is that Stolee's patch is perfect as-is and should not be
generalized at all.

Just my $0.02,
Elijah

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

On the Git mailing list, Taylor Blau wrote (reply to this):

Hi Elijah,

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 05:19:44PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 2:42 PM Pratyush Yadav <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On 30/08/19 02:00AM, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> > > On 29/08/19 04:07PM, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> > > > On 8/29/2019 2:54 PM, Phillip Wood wrote:
> > > > > Hi Stolee
> > > > >
> > > > > On 29/08/2019 18:01, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
> > > > >> +
> > > > >> +    if (argc == 3 && !strcmp(argv[1], "-b")) {
> > > > >> +        /*
> > > > >> +         * User ran 'git checkout -b <branch>' and expects
> > > > >
> > > > > What if the user ran 'git checkout -b<branch>'? Then argc == 2.
> > > >
> > > > Good catch. I'm tempted to say "don't do that" to keep this
> > > > simple. They won't have incorrect results, just slower than
> > > > the "with space" option.
> > > >
> > > > However, if there is enough interest in correcting the "-b<branch>"
> > > > case, then I can make another attempt at this.
> > >
> > > You can probably do this with:
> > >
> > >   !strncmp(argv[1], "-b", 2)
> > >
> > > The difference is so little, might as well do it IMO.
> >
> > Actually, that is not correct. I took a quick look before writing this
> > and missed the fact that argc == 3 is the bigger problem.
> >
> > Thinking a little more about this, you can mix other options with
> > checkout -b, like --track. You can also specify <start_point>.
> >
> > Now I don't know enough about this optimization you are doing to know
> > whether we need to optimize when these options are given, but at least
> > for --track I don't see any reason not to.
> >
> > So maybe you are better off using something like getopt() (warning:
> > getopt modifies the input string so you probably want to duplicate it)
> > if you want to support all cases. Though for this simple case you can
> > probably get away by just directly scanning the argv list for "-b"
> > (using strncmp instead of strcmp to account for "-b<branch-name>)
>
> NO.  This would be unsafe to use if <start_point> is specified.  I
> think either -f or -m together with -b make no sense unless
> <start_point> is specified, but if they do make sense separately, I'm
> guessing this hack should not be used with those flags.  And
> additional flags may appear in the future that should not be used
> together with this hack.
>
> Personally, although I understand the desire to support any possible
> cases in general, *this is a performance hack*.  As such, it should be
> as simple and localized as possible.  I don't think supporting
> old-style stuck flags (-b$BRANCH) is worth complicating this.  I'm
> even leery of adding support for --track (do any users of huge repos
> use -b with --track?  Does anyone at all use --track anymore?  I'm not
> sure I've ever seen any user use that flag in the last 10 years other
> than myself.)  Besides, in the *worst* possible case, the command the
> user specifies works just fine...it just takes a little longer.  My
> opinion is that Stolee's patch is perfect as-is and should not be
> generalized at all.

I wholeheartedly agree with this, and pledge my $.02 towards it as well.
Now with a combined total of $.04, I think that this patch is ready for
queueing as-is.

> Just my $0.02,
> Elijah

Thanks,
Taylor

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

On the Git mailing list, Derrick Stolee wrote (reply to this):

On 8/29/2019 8:43 PM, Taylor Blau wrote:
> Hi Elijah,
> 
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 05:19:44PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
>> Personally, although I understand the desire to support any possible
>> cases in general, *this is a performance hack*.  As such, it should be
>> as simple and localized as possible.  I don't think supporting
>> old-style stuck flags (-b$BRANCH) is worth complicating this.  I'm
>> even leery of adding support for --track (do any users of huge repos
>> use -b with --track?  Does anyone at all use --track anymore?  I'm not
>> sure I've ever seen any user use that flag in the last 10 years other
>> than myself.)  Besides, in the *worst* possible case, the command the
>> user specifies works just fine...it just takes a little longer.  My
>> opinion is that Stolee's patch is perfect as-is and should not be
>> generalized at all.
> 
> I wholeheartedly agree with this, and pledge my $.02 towards it as well.
> Now with a combined total of $.04, I think that this patch is ready for
> queueing as-is.

Thanks, both!

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):

Taylor Blau <[email protected]> writes:

> I wholeheartedly agree with this, and pledge my $.02 towards it as well.
> Now with a combined total of $.04, I think that this patch is ready for
> queueing as-is.

;-)

opts.checkout_index = -2; /* default on */
opts.checkout_worktree = -2; /* default on */

if (argc == 3 && !strcmp(argv[1], "-b")) {
/*
* User ran 'git checkout -b <branch>' and expects
* the same behavior as 'git switch -c <branch>'.
*/
opts.switch_branch_doing_nothing_is_ok = 0;
opts.only_merge_on_switching_branches = 1;
}

options = parse_options_dup(checkout_options);
options = add_common_options(&opts, options);
Expand Down