From: A Large Angry SCM <gitzilla@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:28:25 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Additional merge-base tests
Message-ID: <44ABCC89.2090003@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <200607051039.53288.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de>

Josef Weidendorfer wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 July 2006 23:15, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>>
>>> We could introduce a time.maximumSkew variable, and just walk only 
>>> that much further when traversing the commits.
>> We could have had "commit generation number" in the commit
>> object header, and use that instead of commit timestamps for
>> these traversal purposes.
> 
> Isn't this "commit generation number" information that can be
> regenerated on the fly, i.e. a perfect fit for data to be stored
> in a persistant cache, e.g. in ".git/tmp/virtual-commit-timestamps"?

Yes