Re: Calculating tree nodes

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Sep 4, 2007, 15:05 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709041602230.28586@racer.site>
In-Reply-To: <9e4733910709040731s2695ab14kb9750923fcac007@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Jon Smirl wrote:

Show 18 quoted lines

> On 9/4/07, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Jon Smirl wrote:
> >
> > > In my scheme the path info is moved into the file object nodes and 
> > > the SHA list is in the commit node.
> >
> > And how should this "SHA list" be any different from a single tree 
> > object, except that you now merge it with the commit object?
> >
> > Really, go back to the mail Martin mentioned.  Having all objects in 
> > one list kills performance.
> 
> You are ignoring the fact the in this scheme temp indexes can be
> created as needed. These temp indexes could look just like tree nodes.
> 
> I'm saying that it may be a mistake to be recording the indexes (aka
> file names) as part of the commit when they really aren't.

You still have not acknowledged that you want to do (in essence) _exactly_ the same. Your "temp indexes" awfully remind me of tree objects.

And that is no wonder, since you _need_ something like that, however you want to avoid it. Just admit it that you found -- again -- that flat directory structure does not work, and you therefore need some smaller structures. We just happen to call them "tree objects", and for ease of concept we wrap directories in them.

Hth, Dscho