On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 6:10 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> Stefan Beller writes:
> >> Oh, I think I misled you by saying "more important".
> >> ...
> > I do challenge the decision to take a hardcoded value, though, ...
>
> I do not find any reason why you need to say "though" here.
I caught
Stefan Beller writes:
>> Oh, I think I misled you by saying "more important".
>> ...
> I do challenge the decision to take a hardcoded value, though, ...
I do not find any reason why you need to say "though" here. If you
understood the message you are responding to that use of hardcoded
value
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 6:07 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
>
> > Depending on how we're counting there's at least two.
>
> I thought you were asking "why the special sentinel is not 0{40}?"
> You counted the number of reasons why 0{40} is used to stand in for
> a
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 6:03 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
> > On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 1:07 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >>
> >> Junio C Hamano writes:
> >
> >> > ...
> >> > by general public and I do not have to explain the choice to the
> >> > general public ;-)
> >>
> >>
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
> Depending on how we're counting there's at least two.
I thought you were asking "why the special sentinel is not 0{40}?"
You counted the number of reasons why 0{40} is used to stand in for
a real value, but that was the number I didn't find interesting in
the
Stefan Beller writes:
> On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 1:07 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>> Junio C Hamano writes:
>
>> > ...
>> > by general public and I do not have to explain the choice to the
>> > general public ;-)
>>
>> One thing that is more important than "why not 00 but 17?" to answer
>> is
On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 1:07 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> Junio C Hamano writes:
> > ...
> > by general public and I do not have to explain the choice to the
> > general public ;-)
>
> One thing that is more important than "why not 00 but 17?" to answer
> is why a hardcoded number rather than a
On Sun, Oct 07 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
>
>> 1. We still have this check of objects/17/ in builtin/gc.c today. Why
>>objects/17/ and not e.g. objects/00/ to go with other 000* magic such
>>as the SHA-1?d
Johannes Sixt writes:
> Am 07.10.18 um 21:06 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason:
>> Picking any one number is explained in the comment. I'm asking why 17 in
>> particular not for correctness reasons but as a bit of historical lore,
>> and because my ulterior is to improve the GC docs.
>>
>> The
Am 07.10.18 um 21:06 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason:
Picking any one number is explained in the comment. I'm asking why 17 in
particular not for correctness reasons but as a bit of historical lore,
and because my ulterior is to improve the GC docs.
The number in that comic is 4 (and no
Junio C Hamano writes:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
>
>> 1. We still have this check of objects/17/ in builtin/gc.c today. Why
>>objects/17/ and not e.g. objects/00/ to go with other 000* magic such
>>as the SHA-1?d Statistically
>>it
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
> 1. We still have this check of objects/17/ in builtin/gc.c today. Why
>objects/17/ and not e.g. objects/00/ to go with other 000* magic such
>as the SHA-1?d Statistically
>it doesn't matter, but 17 seems like
On Sun, Oct 07 2018, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Am 07.10.18 um 20:28 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason:
>> In 2007 Junio wrote
>> (https://public-inbox.org/git/7vr6lcj2zi@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org/):
>>
>> +static int need_to_gc(void)
>> +{
>> + /*
>> +* Quickly
Am 07.10.18 um 20:28 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason:
In 2007 Junio wrote
(https://public-inbox.org/git/7vr6lcj2zi@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org/):
+static int need_to_gc(void)
+{
+ /*
+ * Quickly check if a "gc" is needed, by estimating how
+ * many loose objects
In 2007 Junio wrote
(https://public-inbox.org/git/7vr6lcj2zi@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org/):
+static int need_to_gc(void)
+{
+ /*
+* Quickly check if a "gc" is needed, by estimating how
+* many loose objects there are. Because SHA-1 is evenly
+*
15 matches
Mail list logo