From: Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 18:30:29 GMT
Subject: Re: reftable [v6]: new ref storage format
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:
> 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.