Re: maintenance of cache-tree data
- From
Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
- Date
- Apr 24, 2006, 22:34 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vk69e61s4.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vodyq64p7.fsf_-_@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> writes:
Show 5 quoted lines
> The number one reason was because the current index file format > is pretty dense, and I did not find an obvious hole in the > front, in the middle or at the tail to sneak extra data in > without upsetting existing code and without updating index file > version.
Well, I was blind ;-). As long as the whole-file SHA1 matches, read_cache() does not care if we have extra data after the series of active_nr cache entry data in the index file.
I'm working on a patch now.