From bdf3c0640117b3e83af2ca0764f77dae0a07f033 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ilya_Shlyakhter Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:41:45 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Added a comment: deferring the scan --- ...omment_4_4011786784a140442dd7ecd1cefe559b._comment | 11 +++++++++++ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/bugs/significant_performance_regression_impacting_datal/comment_4_4011786784a140442dd7ecd1cefe559b._comment diff --git a/doc/bugs/significant_performance_regression_impacting_datal/comment_4_4011786784a140442dd7ecd1cefe559b._comment b/doc/bugs/significant_performance_regression_impacting_datal/comment_4_4011786784a140442dd7ecd1cefe559b._comment new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..40b04f2f7e --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/bugs/significant_performance_regression_impacting_datal/comment_4_4011786784a140442dd7ecd1cefe559b._comment @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="Ilya_Shlyakhter" + avatar="http://cdn.libravatar.org/avatar/1647044369aa7747829c38b9dcc84df0" + subject="deferring the scan" + date="2021-06-07T17:41:44Z" + content=""" +>The only way to fix it that would not have an on performance would be to remove include= and exclude= from the preferred content expression syntax + +What about deferring the scan until the first command that uses `include=/exclude=` gets run, if `annex.supportunlocked=false`? +Also, could the scan be limited to the files that match one of the include/exclude globs? +"""]] -- 2.30.2