[this email is from last week, and I think most of was responded to in
other parts of the thread, but there were a few loose ends]
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 02:38:12PM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
* Change pack-refs to use the peeled information from ref_entries if it
is available, rather
On 03/16/2013 02:38 PM, Michael Haggerty wrote:
On 03/16/2013 10:34 AM, Jeff King wrote:
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 09:48:42AM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
My patch series is nearly done. I will need another day or two to
review and make it submission-ready, but I wanted to give you an idea
On 03/14/2013 02:40 PM, Jeff King wrote:
Hmph. I coincidentally ran across another problem with 435c833 today.
Try this:
[...]
But that's somewhat off-topic for this discussion. I'll look into it
further and try to make a patch later today or tomorrow.
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:28:53PM
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 09:48:42AM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
My patch series is nearly done. I will need another day or two to
review and make it submission-ready, but I wanted to give you an idea of
what I'm up to and I could also use your feedback on some points.
I was just sending
On 03/16/2013 10:34 AM, Jeff King wrote:
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 09:48:42AM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
My patch series is nearly done. I will need another day or two to
review and make it submission-ready, but I wanted to give you an idea of
what I'm up to and I could also use your
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
What is stored in ref_value.peeled? Is it the peeled version of
ref_value.sha1, or is it the peeled version of the associated refname?
Because they are not necessarily the same thing: an entry in the packed
ref_cache *might* be overridden by a
On 03/14/2013 06:24 AM, Jeff King wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 05:41:58AM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
Here is analysis of our options as I see them:
1. Accept that tags outside of refs/tags are not reliably advertised in
their peeled form. Document this deficiency and either:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:28:53PM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
Perhaps if peel_ref() *were* 100% reliable, we might be able to use it
to avoid object lookups in some other places.
In theory, some of the many uses of deref_tag could be adopted. However,
we do not always have the refname
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 01:24:48AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
So the only question is how much work we want to put into making sure
the new reader handles the old writer correctly. Doing 2c is obviously
more rigorous, and it is not that much work to add the
On 03/14/2013 02:40 PM, Jeff King wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:28:53PM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
Perhaps if peel_ref() *were* 100% reliable, we might be able to use it
to avoid object lookups in some other places.
In theory, some of the many uses of deref_tag could be adopted.
I have been working on the pack-refs code [1] and noticed what looks
like a problem with the handling of peeled refs in the packed-refs file
and in the reference cache. In particular, the peeled versions of tags
outside of refs/tags are *not* stored in packed-refs, but after the
packed-refs file
On 03/13/2013 03:59 PM, Michael Haggerty wrote:
I have been working on the pack-refs code [1] and noticed what looks
like a problem with the handling of peeled refs in the packed-refs file
and in the reference cache. In particular, the peeled versions of tags
outside of refs/tags are *not*
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
It is not
clear to me whether the prohibition of tags outside of refs/tags should
be made more airtight or whether the peeling of tags outside of
refs/tags should be fixed.
Retroactively forbidding presense/creation of tags outside the
designated
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:29:54AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
It is not
clear to me whether the prohibition of tags outside of refs/tags should
be made more airtight or whether the peeling of tags outside of
refs/tags should be fixed.
On 03/13/2013 10:58 PM, Jeff King wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:29:54AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
It is not
clear to me whether the prohibition of tags outside of refs/tags should
be made more airtight or whether the peeling of tags
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 05:41:58AM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
Here is analysis of our options as I see them:
1. Accept that tags outside of refs/tags are not reliably advertised in
their peeled form. Document this deficiency and either:
a. Don't even bother trying to peel refs
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 01:24:48AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
So the only question is how much work we want to put into making sure
the new reader handles the old writer correctly. Doing 2c is obviously
more rigorous, and it is not that much work to add the fully-packed
flag, but I kind of
17 matches
Mail list logo
