Merge eats memory

Michael Ellerman michael at
Mon Jun 6 02:26:13 BST 2005

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 02:20, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > Actually you don't need git at all.
> >
> > Just using a tar ball of the kernel (or probably any large tree) is
> > enough to see the behaviour.
> >
> > This is from merging a 30K patch between two kernel trees (no .git), it
> > took about 8m44s.
> Okay, if we're just talking about kernel trees, I've seen a merge on a
> kernel tree take less than 20 seconds.  So you must be doing it wrong :-)


> Are you merging the working tree or the last-committed revision?  In one
> case, merge has to read every file in the tree.  In the other, it just
> compares the text-ids, and only

Right. I didn't think you could merge non-commited changes? Guess you can. It 
still shouldn't be any slower than 'bzr diff ../k2 | patch -p0' should it?

> So try "merge ../other-kernel-tree/@"

Jeez that's obvious, why didn't I think of putting an @ there?

That fixes it, only takes about 10 seconds, memory usage looks decent.


Michael Ellerman
IBM OzLabs

phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183)

We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors,
we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : 

More information about the bazaar mailing list