On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 10:35:23AM -0700, Jonathan Tan wrote:
> > The rest of the pack code uses a varint encoding which is generally
> > much smaller than a uint64 for most files, but can handle arbitrary
> > sizes.
> >
> > The one thing it loses is that you wouldn't have a fixed-size record, so
Thanks for your comments.
On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 18:16:45 -0400
Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 12:38:43PM -0700, Jonathan Tan wrote:
>
> > > Do we need to future-proof the output format so that we can later
> > > use 32-byte hash? The input to pack-objects (i.e. rev-list --objects)
> >
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 12:38:43PM -0700, Jonathan Tan wrote:
> > Do we need to future-proof the output format so that we can later
> > use 32-byte hash? The input to pack-objects (i.e. rev-list --objects)
> > is hexadecimal text, and it may not be so bad to make this also
> > text, e.g. " SP LF
Here's a new version addressing Junio's comments.
> Hmph, that statement is a hard to read and agree to. I thought an
> ignored object that is not going to be packed is one that won't hit
> to_pack?
That is true currently, but will not be the full truth once the 2nd
patch is applied. I have exp
4 matches
Mail list logo
