4 ms·
They set out to reduce build times, not to reduce git checkout times. It turns out that 99% of the entire build was spent downloading code.
by CGamesPlay 6y ago
They set out to reduce build times, not to reduce git checkout times. It turns out that 99% of the entire build was spent downloading code.
- lytedev 6y agoThis isn't true either, as the article says that builds went from 40 minutes to 30 minutes. The time spent cloning was presumably about 10 minutes and came down very far, presumably by 99%.
- phildenhoff 6y agoIt says from 40 minutes to 30 seconds, not minutes.
- Thorrez 6y ago> the article says that builds went from 40 minutes to 30 minutes. Where in the article does it say that? The article says this: > This simple one line change reduced our clone times by 99% and significantly reduced our build times as a result. Cloning our largest repo, Pinboard went from 40 minutes to 30 seconds. Both of those sentences say the clone time was reduced by 99%. There are percentage numbers given for how much the build time was reduced, nor any numbers about the total build time.
- lytedev 6y agoI stand quite corrected. Sorry, all!
- Thorrez 6y agoWhere does the article say "99% of the entire build was spent downloading code"?
- colechristensen 6y agoIt quotes a jenkins job going from 40 minutes to 30 seconds.
- shawabawa3 6y agoThey say "Cloning our largest repo, Pinboard, went from 40 minutes to 30 seconds" Presumably the build does more than just clone
- Dylan16807 6y agoThe title. If they reduced the build time by that much, then at least that much of the build time must have been spent downloading code. If the title is a lie (which it probably is), then nevermind that number, but it's clear where it came from.
- mcherm 6y agoThe text of the article clearly states that clone time was reduced by 99%. The only way build time could have been reduced by 99% is if every part of the build other than cloning is negligible. It is far more plausible to assume that the title is simply wrong.