Hi,
Ben Peart wrote:
> There is no way to get multi-threaded reads and NOT get the scary message
> with older versions of git. Multi-threaded reads require the IEOT extension
> to be written into the index and the existence of the IEOT extension in the
> index will always generate the scary
On 11/13/2018 4:08 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Hi again,
Ben Peart wrote:
On 11/13/2018 1:18 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Ben Peart wrote:
Why introduce a new setting to disable writing the IEOT extension instead of
just using the existing index.threads setting? If index.threads=1 then
Ben Peart writes:
> Why introduce a new setting to disable writing the IEOT extension
> instead of just using the existing index.threads setting?
But index.threads is about what the reader does, not about the
writer who does not even know who will be reading the resulting
index, no?
Hi again,
Ben Peart wrote:
> On 11/13/2018 1:18 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Ben Peart wrote:
>>> Why introduce a new setting to disable writing the IEOT extension instead of
>>> just using the existing index.threads setting? If index.threads=1 then the
>>> IEOT extension isn't written which
On 11/13/2018 1:18 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Hi,
Ben Peart wrote:
On 11/12/2018 7:39 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
As with EOIE, popular versions of Git do not support the new IEOT
extension yet. When accessing a Git repository written by a more
modern version of Git, they correctly
Hi,
Ben Peart wrote:
> On 11/12/2018 7:39 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> As with EOIE, popular versions of Git do not support the new IEOT
>> extension yet. When accessing a Git repository written by a more
>> modern version of Git, they correctly ignore the unrecognized section,
>> but in the
Hi again,
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Then removing the message is throwing it with bathwater. First
> think about which part of the message is confusiong and then make it
> less confusing.
>
> How about
>
> hint: ignoring an optional IEOT extension
>
> to make it clear that it is totally
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 2:12 AM Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> > How about
> >
> > hint: ignoring an optional IEOT extension
> >
> > to make it clear that it is totally harmless?
> >
> > With that, we can add advise.unknownIndexExtension=false to turn all
> > of them
On 11/12/2018 7:39 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
As with EOIE, popular versions of Git do not support the new IEOT
extension yet. When accessing a Git repository written by a more
modern version of Git, they correctly ignore the unrecognized section,
but in the process they loudly warn
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> How about
>
> hint: ignoring an optional IEOT extension
>
> to make it clear that it is totally harmless?
>
> With that, we can add advise.unknownIndexExtension=false to turn all
> of them off with a single switch.
I like it. Expect a patch soon (tonight or
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> As with EOIE, popular versions of Git do not support the new IEOT
> extension yet. When accessing a Git repository written by a more
> modern version of Git, they correctly ignore the unrecognized section,
> but in the process they loudly warn
>
> ignoring IEOT
> +index.recordOffsetTable::
> + Specifies whether the index file should include an "Index Entry
> + Offset Table" section. This reduces index load time on
> + multiprocessor machines but produces a message "ignoring IEOT
> + extension" when reading the index using Git versions
As with EOIE, popular versions of Git do not support the new IEOT
extension yet. When accessing a Git repository written by a more
modern version of Git, they correctly ignore the unrecognized section,
but in the process they loudly warn
ignoring IEOT extension
resulting in confusion
13 matches
Mail list logo
