On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 14:34 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
> > [+cc Junio for cache-tree expertise]
> > ...
> > We never call reset_index now, because we handle it via diff.  We could
> > call prime_cache_tree in this case, but I'm not sure if that is a good
> > idea, because it primes it from scratch (and so it opens up all those
> > trees that we are trying to avoid touching). I'm not sure if there's an
> > easy way to update it incrementally; I don't know the cache-tree code
> > very well.
> The cache-tree is designed to start in a well-populated state,
> allowing you to efficiently smudge the part you touched by
> invalidating while keeping the parts you haven't touched intact.

As far as I can tell, the cache-tree does not in fact ever get into a
well-populated state (that is, it does not exist at all) under ordinary
git operation except by git reset --hard.  Perhaps this was already
clear from the previous traffic on the thread, but I wanted to make sure
Junio was also aware of this.

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