Re: Darcs-git: a few notes for Git hackers
- From
Petr Baudis <pasky@ucw.cz>
- Date
- May 17, 2005, 20:21 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20050517202150.GG7136@pasky.ji.cz>
- In-Reply-To
- <Pine.LNX.4.44.0505151204230.2136-100000@bellevue.puremagic.com>
Dear diary, on Sun, May 15, 2005 at 09:06:27PM CEST, I got a letter where Brad Roberts <braddr@puremagic.com> told me that...
Show 8 quoted lines
> > > 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... > > The entire index is bit shuffled around even if nothing changed. At least > today, size and amount changed doesn't matter.
At the very least, it probably shouldn't get shuffled around if there are no changes whatsoever.
> > I'd imagine the plan of attack to continue by changing active_cache to > > be struct cache, then making it local. > > Which is what the rest of that patch does.
Well, the important word there was "then". :-) I think the patch is too big, do you think it would be possible to separate it to those two stages? (I could do it on my own when I get enough time, but who knows when that happens... ;-)
Thanks,
-- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor