On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:42 AM, David Turner <dtur...@twopensource.com> wrote:
>> I assume you won't change your mind about this. Which is fine to me. I
>> will still try out my approach with your libwatchman though. Just
>> curious about its performance and complexity, compared to your
>> approach.
> I am open-minded here. This code is really the first time I have looked
> at git's internals, and I accept that your way might be better.  If
> you're going to try the watchman version of your approach, then we do a
> direct comparison.  Let me know if there is something I can do to help
> out on that.

You already helped by publishing your patches (and letting me know
about libwatchman) so I can steal bits here and there ;-)

>> A bit off topic, but msys fork has another "fscache" in compat/win32.
>> If you could come up with a different name, maybe it'll be less
>> confusing for them after merging. But this is not a big deal, as this
>> fscache won't work on windows anyway.
> Does wtcache sounds like a better name?

Heh i'm bad at naming. But that sounds a bit cryptic. Maybe
watchman-cache.c (with funtions starting with prefix wmc_)? Should not
worry too much about this though, unless some msysgit guys yell up.
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