Re: gitpacker progress report and a question

From: Eric S. Raymond <esr@thyrsus.com>
Date: Nov 26, 2012, 22:01 UTC
Message-ID: <20121126220108.GB1713@thyrsus.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s30px2FgieC9VcGji7T+yWFo7gMSwQhtuztHrqto8B7Aw@mail.gmail.com>

Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>:

> 1) I tried it, and it doesn't seem to import (pack?) are repository
> with sub-directories in it

I'll make sure my regression test checks this case.  The options to git 
ls-files are a bit confusing and it's possible my invocation of it
needs to change.

> 2) Using 'git fast-import' is probably simpler, and more efficient

That might well be.  I'm not worried about "efficiency" in this context 
but reducing the code size is significant and I'm willing to re-code
to do that.

> Here is a proof of concept I wrote in ruby that is half the size, and
> seems to implement the same functionality.

Not anywhere near the same. It only handles commits, not tags. It doesn't issue delete ops. And it doesn't rebuild branch heads. If I were willing to omit those features, I'm sure I could halve the size of my implementation, too. Of course, it would then be almost completely useless...

>                           The format is exactly the
> same, but I think it should be modified to be more efficient.

I'm not wedded to the log format as it is, so I'll cheerfully take suggestions about it.

Be aware, however, that I consider easy editability by human beings much more important than squeezing the last microsecond out of the processing time. So, for example, I won't use data byte counts rather than end delimiters, the way import streams do.

-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>