Re: [PATCH 3/6] Stop producing index version 2
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Feb 7, 2012, 05:21 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vehu743rp.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAJo=hJvtRnmvALcn3vKpYTr3j6ada8iboPjWN3cQnwwKzRvrDA@mail.gmail.com>
Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> writes:
Show 9 quoted lines
> <thinking type="wishful" probability="never-happen" > probably-inflating-flame-from="linus"> > > I have long wanted to scrap the current index format. I unfortunately > don't have the time to do it myself. But I suspect there may be a lot > of gains by making the index format match the canonical tree format > better by keeping the tree structure within a single file stream, > nesting entries below their parent directory, and keeping tree SHA-1 > data along with the directory entry.
I suspect that is not so "never-happen wishful thinking".
In an earlier message, I alluded to a data structure that starts with a single top-level tree entry that is lazily expanded as the index entries are updated. The above shows that at least two of us share the same (day) dream, and I suspect there are others that share the same "gut feeling" that such a tree-based structure would be the way to do large index right.
It would be a large and possibly painful change, but the good thing is that the index is a local matter and we won't have to worry too much about a flag day event.
</thinking>