[MERGE] is_ignored improvements...

[John A Meinel]

Aaron Bentley wrote:
> Jan Hudec wrote:
>> On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 11:57:15 -0500, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
>>
>>> Yep. I would also say that it would be nice if we put commonly hit
>>> patterns early, since I also saw a big difference between foo.19 and
>>> foo.999 (more of a difference than even the difference between 100, 1k
>>> and 2k patterns).
>>
>>
>> Yes. But I can't really think of a good way to do this. Given how the
>> patterns are given. Also the worst case is not matching, which is
>> unfortunately the most common one :-(
> 
> Hmm.  When do we get this?  Would it make sense to cache a list of
> ignored files?
> 
> Aaron
> 

The issue is all of the files which aren't ignored. I'm not sure how the
code works. If it looks up the file in the inventory first, then it
shouldn't actually be evaluating is_ignored() for versioned files. But
we know this isn't entirely true, since 'bzr add' will report files
which would otherwise be ignored.

John
=:->


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060521/4a476303/attachment.pgp