Hi,
Jeff King wrote:
When we look up a sha1 object for reading, we first check
packfiles, and then loose objects. If we still haven't found
it, we re-scan the list of packfiles in `objects/pack`. This
final step ensures that we can co-exist with a simultaneous
repack process which creates a
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Jeff King wrote:
When we look up a sha1 object for reading, we first check
packfiles, and then loose objects. If we still haven't found
it, we re-scan the list of packfiles in `objects/pack`. This
final step ensures that we can co-exist with a
Junio C Hamano wrote:
It is not about a rough estimate nor common commits, though. The
everything local check in question is interested in only one
thing: are we _clearly_ up to date without fetching anything from
them?
[...]
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
* Why is 49bb805e
When we look up a sha1 object for reading, we first check
packfiles, and then loose objects. If we still haven't found
it, we re-scan the list of packfiles in `objects/pack`. This
final step ensures that we can co-exist with a simultaneous
repack process which creates a new pack and then prunes
When we look up a sha1 object for reading, we first check
packfiles, and then loose objects. If we still haven't found
it, we re-scan the list of packfiles in `objects/pack`. This
final step ensures that we can co-exist with a simultaneous
repack process which creates a new pack and then prunes
5 matches
Mail list logo