Re: Watchman support for git

From: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: May 19, 2014, 10:10 UTC
Message-ID: <CACsJy8C5xvs1ouO=1P8i61i1QCWNu67NAebFpC8F3M91qq2AVw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1400182971.14179.49.camel@stross>

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:42 AM, David Turner <dturner@twopensource.com> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

>> I assume you won't change your mind about this. Which is fine to me. I
>> will still try out my approach with your libwatchman though. Just
>> curious about its performance and complexity, compared to your
>> approach.
>
> I am open-minded here. This code is really the first time I have looked
> at git's internals, and I accept that your way might be better.  If
> you're going to try the watchman version of your approach, then we do a
> direct comparison.  Let me know if there is something I can do to help
> out on that.

You already helped by publishing your patches (and letting me know about libwatchman) so I can steal bits here and there ;-)

Show 7 quoted lines

>> A bit off topic, but msys fork has another "fscache" in compat/win32.
>> If you could come up with a different name, maybe it'll be less
>> confusing for them after merging. But this is not a big deal, as this
>> fscache won't work on windows anyway.
>
> Does wtcache sounds like a better name?
>

Heh i'm bad at naming. But that sounds a bit cryptic. Maybe watchman-cache.c (with funtions starting with prefix wmc_)? Should not worry too much about this though, unless some msysgit guys yell up.

-- 
Duy