From: Petr Baudis Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 11:48:47 GMT Subject: Re: Darcs-git: a few notes for Git hackers Message-ID: <20050515114847.GD13024@pasky.ji.cz> In-Reply-To: Dear diary, on Sun, May 15, 2005 at 04:04:25AM CEST, I got a letter where Brad Roberts told me that... > > I wasn't able to finish redoing these against linus tip, but I got most of > > it done (patches 1-14 of the original 19): > > > > http://gameboy2.puremagic.com:8090/ > > rsync://gameboy2.puremagic.com/git/ > > > > The second, third, and forth to last changes need a careful review, > > they're direct applications of the original patches which were lightly > > tested during the first round and nothing other than compile tested in > > this round. > > > > I suspect the remaining parts of the original patch series will go in > > fairly smoothly. If no one gets to them before tonight I'll finish > > it up after work. > > > > Later, > > Brad > > I've completed the re-merge, and moved to tip of git-pb.git rather than > tip of git.git. Unfortunatly that merge was also somewhat intrusive and > my individual diffs along the way are somewhat useless now. The entire > history is available about the above locations still. Attached is the > full diff vs git-pb @ 902b92e00e491a60d55c4b2bce122903b8347f34. I've merged some of the minor stuff for now. > 2) Should the index changing areas be constructing a new index instead of > shuffling bits within the current index? When I have a big cache (the only time it matters), I do usually only relatively small changes to it, so... > 3) The vocabulary and code is inconsistent between cache and index. Yes... > 4) read-cache.c does much more than reading. and yes. And cache.h is full of crap. Perhaps we could move read-cache.c to cache.c? I'd imagine the plan of attack to continue by changing active_cache to be struct cache, then making it local. -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor