On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 5:48 AM, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
Probably off topic. Does saving a list of missing bases in the pack
index help storing thin packs directly? I may be missing some points
because I don't see why thin packs cannot be stored on disk in the
first place.
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Shawn Pearce spea...@spearce.org wrote:
You mentioned this before in your idea mail a while back. I wonder if
it's worth storing bitmaps for all packs, not just the self contained
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Shawn Pearce spea...@spearce.org wrote:
* https://git.eclipse.org/r/7939
Defines the new E003 index format and the bit set
implementation logic.
Quote from the patch's message:
Currently, the new index format can only be used with pack files that
contain
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Shawn Pearce spea...@spearce.org wrote:
Google has published a series of patches (see links below) to JGit to
Should discussions about this series happen in here, jgit mailing or
gerrit? I just want to make sure I'll discuss it at the right place.
improve fetch
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Shawn Pearce spea...@spearce.org wrote:
Google has published a series of patches (see links below) to JGit to
Should discussions about this series happen in here, jgit mailing or
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 07:17:42PM +0700, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:
Operation Index V2 Index VE003
Clone 37530ms (524.06 MiB) 82ms (524.06 MiB)
Fetch (1 commit back) 75ms 107ms
Fetch (10 commits back)
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 07:17:42PM +0700, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:
Operation Index V2 Index VE003
Clone 37530ms (524.06 MiB) 82ms (524.06 MiB)
Fetch (1 commit back)
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:35:47AM -0700, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:
If that is the case, do we need to bump the index
version at all? Why not store a plain v2 index, and then store an
additional file pack-XXX.reachable that contains the bitmaps and an
independent version number.
This is
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
I think clients will also want it. If we can make git rev-list
--objects --all faster (which this should be able to do), we can speed
up git prune, which in turn is by far the slowest part of git gc
--auto, since in the typical
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:36:19AM -0700, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:
Interesting. I would have assumed it depended on order in the index.
No. We tried that. Assigning bits by order in index (aka order of
SHA-1s sorted) results in horrible compression of the bitmap itself
because of the uniform
Hi all,
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 07:17:42PM +0700, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:
Operation Index V2 Index VE003
Clone 37530ms (524.06 MiB) 82ms (524.06 MiB)
Fetch (1
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 02:52:29PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
No. The pack file name is composed from the SHA-1 of the sorted SHA-1s
in the pack. Any change in compression settings or delta windows or
even just random scheduling variations when repacking can cause
offsets to slide, even if
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
So yeah, we would want to put the pack trailer sha1 into the
supplementary index file, and check that it matches when we open it.
It's a slight annoyance, but it's O(1).
Yes. If I am not mistaken, that is exactly how an .idx file makes
sure that it describes
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 02:33:01PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
So yeah, we would want to put the pack trailer sha1 into the
supplementary index file, and check that it matches when we open it.
It's a slight annoyance, but it's O(1).
Yes. If I am not
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Shawn Pearce spea...@spearce.org wrote:
I'd like to see some sort of extension mechanism like in
$GIT_DIR/index, so that we don't have to increase pack index version
often.
This might be worthwhile. I dislike the way $GIT_DIR/index encodes
extensions. Forcing
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
Definitely :-). I have shown my interest in this topic before. So I
should probably say that I'm going to work on this on C Git, but
slllwwwly. As this benefits the server side greatly, perhaps a
GitHubber ;-) might want to
16 matches
Mail list logo
