Re: [GSoC] Designing a faster index format - Progress report week 13

2012-07-24 Thread Thomas Rast
Junio C Hamano writes: > Thomas Rast writes: > >> Junio's index-v4 was a speed boost mainly because it cuts down on the >> size of the index. Do we want to throw that out? > > That's pretty much orthogonal, isn't it? > > The index-v4 is merely to show how a stupid prefix compression of > pathna

Re: [GSoC] Designing a faster index format - Progress report week 13

2012-07-24 Thread Junio C Hamano
Thomas Rast writes: > Junio's index-v4 was a speed boost mainly because it cuts down on the > size of the index. Do we want to throw that out? That's pretty much orthogonal, isn't it? The index-v4 is merely to show how a stupid prefix compression of pathnames without nothing else would reduce

Re: [GSoC] Designing a faster index format - Progress report week 13

2012-07-24 Thread Thomas Rast
Robin Rosenberg writes: > Junio C Hamano skrev 2012-07-22 23.08: >> Thomas Rast writes: >> >>> What is the status quo? I take it JGit does not have any of ctime, dev, >>> ino etc., and either leaves the existing value or puts a 0 >>> an argument in favor of splitting stat_crc into its field

Re: [GSoC] Designing a faster index format - Progress report week 13

2012-07-23 Thread Robin Rosenberg
Junio C Hamano skrev 2012-07-22 23.08: Thomas Rast writes: Hum, I'm a bit lost now. What is the status quo? I take it JGit does not have any of ctime, dev, ino etc., and either leaves the existing value or puts a 0 an argument in favor of splitting stat_crc into its fields again? A dif

Re: [GSoC] Designing a faster index format - Progress report week 13

2012-07-22 Thread Junio C Hamano
Thomas Rast writes: > Hum, I'm a bit lost now. > > What is the status quo? I take it JGit does not have any of ctime, dev, > ino etc., and either leaves the existing value or puts a 0 > an argument in favor of splitting stat_crc into its fields again? A difference is that JGit already has s

Re: [GSoC] Designing a faster index format - Progress report week 13

2012-07-22 Thread Thomas Rast
Junio C Hamano writes: > Robin Rosenberg writes: > >> A note on how JGit would work here. Java has none of the fields >> that constitute statcrc. I guess we would write zero here when >> creating new entries. Git could recognize that when checking status >> and simply assume "clean" unless mtime

Re: [GSoC] Designing a faster index format - Progress report week 13

2012-07-22 Thread Junio C Hamano
Robin Rosenberg writes: > A note on how JGit would work here. Java has none of the fields > that constitute statcrc. I guess we would write zero here when > creating new entries. Git could recognize that when checking status > and simply assume "clean" unless mtime or st_size says otherwise. Eve

Re: [GSoC] Designing a faster index format - Progress report week 13

2012-07-22 Thread Robin Rosenberg
A note on how JGit would work here. Java has none of the fields that constitute statcrc. I guess we would write zero here when creating new entries. Git could recognize that when checking status and simply assume "clean" unless mtime or st_size says otherwise. For existing entries JGit could e

Re: [GSoC] Designing a faster index format - Progress report week 13

2012-07-17 Thread Thomas Gummerer
Thanks Junio for reading the progress report, this is just corrected version without the errors that he pointed out. == Work done in the previous 12 weeks == - Definition of a tentative index file v5 format [1]. This differs from the proposal in making it possible to bisect the directory entr

Re: [GSoC] Designing a faster index format - Progress report week 13

2012-07-17 Thread Thomas Gummerer
On 07/16, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Thomas Gummerer writes: > > > == Work done in the previous 12 weeks == > > > > - Definition of a tentative index file v5 format [1]. This differs > > from the proposal in making it possible to bisect the directory > > entries and file entries, to do a binar

Re: [GSoC] Designing a faster index format - Progress report week 13

2012-07-16 Thread Junio C Hamano
Thomas Gummerer writes: > == Work done in the previous 12 weeks == > > - Definition of a tentative index file v5 format [1]. This differs > from the proposal in making it possible to bisect the directory > entries and file entries, to do a binary search. The exact bits > for each section we