On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:47:33AM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > > I could guess something like "the writer has a different idea of what a > > valid refname is than we do". But that applies as well to (2), but just > > as "the reader who wrote packed-refs.stat has a different idea than we > > do". > > If we want to be robust to future changes to refname rules, we could add > a header flag like > > # pack-refs with: peeled fully-peeled check-level=1.0 > > which promises that the reference names in the file conform to the > current ("version 1.0") check_refname_format() rules.
Yeah, I thought about mentioning something like that. But really, this just seems like a lot of complexity to solve the problem in a wrong way. It's not running check_refname_format that is the real problem. It's the fact that we do O(# of refs) work whenever we have to access the packed-refs file. check_refname_format is part of that, surely, but so is reading the file, creating all of the refname structs in memory, etc. I'd much rather see a solution that lets us do O(log N) or O(1) work to access a ref, and then we don't have to care about optimizing check_refname_format specifically. I don't mind internal code speedups to micro-optimize check_refname_format. They may make the code uglier, but they're fairly contained. But things like check-level are much more invasive, and we'll need to keep compatibility with them in future versions. -Peff -- 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