Re: reftable [v6]: new ref storage format
- From
Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
- Date
- Aug 7, 2017, 18:30 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAJo=hJvsdkrv6uELF0BHxqk4+as8-tr1bdYNHiQ3paTmn=2sRw@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAGZ79kZO517Bg+O2z3dr+oHqO_av1__FU3h9bP=rhXJUSDnRjA@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
Show 10 quoted lines
> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> wrote: >> 6th iteration of the reftable storage format. >> >> You can read a rendered version of this here: >> https://googlers.googlesource.com/sop/jgit/+/reftable/Documentation/technical/reftable.md >> >> The index may be organized into a multi-level index, where ... >> which may in turn point to either index blocks (3rd level) or ref blocks (leaf level). > > So we allow 3 levels at most?
No, its just an example. Large ref sets with small block size need 4 levels. Or more.
> The file format structure marks the indexes '?', should that be > rather '*' to indicate there can be more than one index block?
Will fix in the next respin of the document, thanks.