Re: [PATCH 2/2] Flag and skip over packfiles known to be invalid.

From: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date: Feb 4, 2007, 05:02 UTC
Message-ID: <20070204050237.GD16766@spearce.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vr6t7bxsn.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org> writes:
> 
> > I almost submitted a patch to do that tonight, but I couldn't decide
> > on behavior: should we scan known packs, then try for loose, then
> > scan packs again until no object or no new pack is found?  Probably.
> 
> Hmmm.  Probably.  
> 
> But I tend to think that this particular failure scenario is
> probably rare enough that plugging this in "the right way" is
> not a high priority.  We should definitely revisit it post
> 1.5.0.

Indeed.  I'll come back to it after 1.5.0 is out.

Show 5 quoted lines

> Also if we are adding a bitfield, I think pack_local should also
> become one, as it currently wastes a whole word to hold one bit
> (on the other hand if we do not want to add a field I think a
> different negative value in pack_fd could mean "do not bother to
> look at it again").

Good point. I forgot about that ~4 byte boolean hanging around. As a comment on the TDWTF might say, "Yes, No, FileNotFound, 42, 192, 1088, ... these are all valid values for pack_local!" :-)

-- 
Shawn.