From: Duy Nguyen Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 10:10:38 GMT Subject: Re: Watchman support for git Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1400182971.14179.49.camel@stross> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:42 AM, David Turner wrote: >> 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 ;-) >> 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