From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 22:34:35 GMT
Subject: Re: maintenance of cache-tree data
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:

> 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.