On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Nicolas Pitre <n...@fluxnic.net> wrote:
> I think that we've found a way to better support thin packs.
> You said:
>> What if the sender prepares the sha-1 table to contain missing objects
>> in advance? The sender should know what base objects are missing. Then
>> we only need to append objects at the receiving end and verify that
>> all new objects are also present in the sha-1 table.
> So the SHA1 table is covered.
> Missing objects in a thin pack cannot themselves be deltas.  We had
> their undeltified form at the end of a pack for the pack to be complete.
> Therefore those missing objects serve only as base objects for other
> deltas.
> Although this is possible to have deltified commit objects in pack v2, I
> don't think this happens very often. There is no deltified commit
> objects in pack v4.
> Blob objects are the same in pack v2 and pack v4.  No dictionary
> references are needed.
> That leaves only tree objects.  And because we've also discussed the
> need to have non transcoded object representations for those odd cases
> such as zero padded file modes, we might as well simply use that for the
> appended tree objects already needed to complete a thin pack.  At least
> the strings in tree entries will be compressed that way.
> Problem solved, and one less special case in the code.
> What do you think?


>  Please also remove this from your documentation patch.

Will do.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to