Re: [RFC/PATCH] define the way new representation types are encoded in the pack
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes:
Show 10 quoted lines
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> When bit 4-6 encodes type 5, the first byte is used this way:
>>
>> - Bit 0-3 denotes the real "extended" representation type. Because types
>> 0-7 can already be encoded without using the extended format, we can
>> offset the type by 8 (i.e. if bit 0-3 says 3, it means representation
>> type 11 = 3 + 8);
>
> Why not use third byte for that instead?
Is it a good enough reason that there is no upside for doing so?