From: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 14:25:50 GMT
Subject: Re: Index format v5
Message-ID: <CACsJy8CUC8AXYvDEH75NGC_r3HwLoaiq0qxn2EAC0Aq4VXVMag@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120508141137.GA3937@tgummerer.surfnet.iacbox>

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com> wrote:
>> * "160-bit object name for the object that would result from writing
>>   this span of index as a tree."  Is this always valid?
>
> No, this is only valid if the entry count is not -1. It's clarified
> now.

..and..

> The entry_count in the index is only valid, if the cache-tree is valid,
> which is not always the case.

I think your trees are the cache-trees already. For invalid
cache-trees, you can just use all-zero sha-1 as the indicator. Then
entry_count can go away.
-- 
Duy