From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 07:11:23 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] define the way new representation types are encoded in the pack
Message-ID: <7v4nyrrm1w.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <CACsJy8Cz0R_s+VYRd+1wTTfbt_vH5dd3ALgZip0xn7rfYf6gpw@mail.gmail.com>

Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:

> Because all blobs in this tree object must be in a fixed order, and
> they won't likely have meaningful names nor permission, should
> CAT_TREE payload is a SHA-1 sequence of all blobs (or cat-trees if we
> want nested trees) instead? IOW the tree is integrated into cat-tree
> object, not as a separate tree object.

I have no problem with that (I am not worried about minor details of the
actual implementation of cat-tree yet).

> Not sure if it's related to representation types, but is there any way
> (perhaps FLAT_BLOB type?) we can mark an object uncompressed, so we
> can mmap() and access it directly?

In pack? Loose? Both?

What kind of payload and use case do you have in mind?