Derrick Stolee <sto...@gmail.com> writes:
>> What's the doneness of this one? I vaguely recall that there was
>> an objection against the concept as a whole (i.e. there is a way
>> with less damage to gain the same object-abbrev performance); has
>> it (and if anything else, they) been resolved in satisfactory
>> fashion?
>
> I believe you're talking about Ævar's patch series [1] on
> unconditional abbreviation lengths.
Yes, this is a total tangent, but what happened to that one? I did
not queue because I was led to expect v2 to follow soonish [*1*].
> Lookup speeds improve in a multi-pack environment.
True. I recall that years ago there was a discussion, but nobody
came up with patches, to do the consolidated .idx for exactly that
reason (not the "abbrev" reason).
> That's the best I can do to sell the feature as it stands now (plus
> the 'fsck' integration that would follow after this series is
> accepted).
Heh, 'fsck' intergration is not a 'feature' to sell anything, I
would think. Nobody wants to run fsck for the sake of running
it---it is just having one extra file that must not go corrupt
_requires_ one to have a way to check its integrity and fsck is the
logical place to do so X-<.
In any case, we've had this for about a week in 'pu' after 4
iterations, and review comments seem to have quieted down [*2*], so
let's consider merging it down to 'next'. I think at least I need
to "commit --amend" (or something like that) 16/23.
[Footnotes]
*1* <87a7s4471y....@evledraar.gmail.com>
*2* That does not indicate either of these two:
- nobody is interested in the topic
- the topic is now without any flaw
It only means that keeping it in 'pu' as a dormant topic would
not do anybody any good.
