From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 04:39:02 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pack-objects: proper pack time stamping with --max-pack-size
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0803140035260.2947@xanadu.home>
In-Reply-To: <7vmyp1vsa7.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> writes:
> 
> > Runtime pack access is done in the pack file mtime order since recent 
> > packs are more likely to contain frequently used objects than old packs.
> > However the --max-pack-size option can produce multiple packs with mtime 
> > in the reversed order as newer objects are always written first.
> >
> > Let's modify mtime of later pack files (when any) so they appear older 
> > than preceding ones when a repack creates multiple packs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
> > ---
> > diff --git a/builtin-pack-objects.c b/builtin-pack-objects.c
> > index f504cff..4c2ed70 100644
> > --- a/builtin-pack-objects.c
> > +++ b/builtin-pack-objects.c
> > @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@
> >  #include "progress.h"
> >  #include "refs.h"
> >  
> > +#include <utime.h>
> > +
> 
> Hmmm.  Shouldn't this go to git-compat-util.h?

Maybe... if you say so.

The whole header file arrangement logic is somewhat escaping my mind, so 
I simply decided to do the same as in test-chmtime.c.


Nicolas