From: Dana How Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 06:24:05 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Custom compression levels for objects and packs Message-ID: <56b7f5510705082324q4e054b75l7021dc08ec31392@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <7vr6pqy1ty.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> On 5/8/07, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Dana How" writes: > > On 5/8/07, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Dana How writes: > >> > This applies on top of the git-repack --max-pack-size patchset. > >> Hmph, that makes the --max-pack-size patchset take this more > >> trivial and straightforward improvements hostage. In general, > >> I'd prefer more elaborate ones based on less questionable > >> series. > > The max-pack-size and pack.compression patches touch the same lines. > > I thought my options were: > > * Submit independently and make you merge; or > > * Make one precede the other. > > Since max-pack-size has been out there since April 4 and > > the first acceptable version was May 1 (suggested by 0 comments), > > I didn't realize it was a "questionable series". > No, what I meant was that it is much "more elaborate" series > than this custom compression which is much "less questionable". > > I think this custom compression is 1.5.2 material. I have not > studied the code for the max-pack-size enough to be confident to > put it in 1.5.2, at least not yet, and was planning to park the > latter in 'next' until 1.5.2 final. OK, thanks for guesstimating the overall schedule. I was starting to wonder what the next step(s) should be. I will incorporate your & Nicolas's comments and send out a new custom compression patch tomorrow. I *think* I addressed everyone's comments on max-pack-size, but let me know if you find anything else when you get around to it. Thanks, -- Dana L. How danahow@gmail.com +1 650 804 5991 cell