Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Thomas Rast tr...@student.ethz.ch writes:
I like the general idea, too, but I think there is a long way ahead, and
we shouldn't hold up v5 on this.
We shouldn't rush, only to keep some deadline, and regret it later
that we butchered the index format
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Thomas Rast tr...@student.ethz.ch wrote:
Thomas and me -- it was mostly my bad idea -- spent some time going
through all the loops that iterate over the index. You can get some
taste of it with 'git grep ce_stage', mostly because many of them either
skip
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
If the workload we _care_ about is served better by using an API
that works over an in-core tree-shaped index data structure, I do
not think it is unreasonable to read the v2 on-disk format and
represent it as a
Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy pclo...@gmail.com writes:
OK how about this. The general idea is preserve/extend current flat
index API and add a new (tree-based) one. Index users can use either.
They can even mix them up (which they do because we can't just flip
the API in one day for about 200 source
Thomas Rast tr...@inf.ethz.ch writes:
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Thomas Rast tr...@student.ethz.ch writes:
I like the general idea, too, but I think there is a long way ahead, and
we shouldn't hold up v5 on this.
We shouldn't rush, only to keep some deadline, and regret it
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
The current code that access nth entry from the index-cache[nth]
would need to be updated to use an accessor function, whether the
nth comes from index_name_pos() or from the for-loop that iterates
over the entire index.
Thomas Rast tr...@student.ethz.ch writes:
I like the general idea, too, but I think there is a long way ahead, and
we shouldn't hold up v5 on this.
We shouldn't rush, only to keep some deadline, and regret it later
that we butchered the index format without thinking things through.
When this
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Then of course you need to split the second patch into several logical
patches again. We can drop _v5 suffix in read-cache-v5.c (I haven't
done that). When we add partial read/write for v5, we can add more
func pointers to index_ops and implement them
Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy pclo...@gmail.com writes:
add_to_index and remove_index_entry_at seem good places for the cut.
But do we need to redefine the location?
That is one of the things we need to think about carefully. Of
course, if add_to_index() just takes a pathname out of the ce the
caller
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
The index_ops abstraction is a right way to go, and I like it, but I
think the split illustrated in this patch might turn out to be at
wrong levels (and it is OK, as I understand this is a illustration
of concept patch).
These mails are about cosmetics only. But I think it helps maintenance
in long term. I notice in your series we have many functions with _v2
and _v5 mixed together. Worse, some functions that are _v2 only are
not suffixed with _v2. I still think separating v2/v5 changes is a
good idea. So I played
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy pclo...@gmail.com writes:
These mails are about cosmetics only. But I think it helps maintenance
in long term. I notice in your series we have many functions with _v2
and _v5 mixed together. Worse, some functions that are _v2 only are
not suffixed with _v2. I still think
On 08/06, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy pclo...@gmail.com writes:
These mails are about cosmetics only. But I think it helps maintenance
in long term. I notice in your series we have many functions with _v2
and _v5 mixed together. Worse, some functions that are _v2 only are
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy pclo...@gmail.com writes:
These mails are about cosmetics only. But I think it helps maintenance
in long term. I notice in your series we have many functions with _v2
and _v5 mixed together. Worse, some functions that are _v2 only are
not suffixed with _v2. I still think
Fist again apologies for those who were not credited in the first
version of this series.
The first version of the series was here: $gmane/202752.
Changes since the last version:
This series now applies to the latest master.
[PATCH/RFC v2 01/16] Modify cache_header to prepare for other index
15 matches
Mail list logo
