Re: [PATCH 00/23] Preliminary pack v4 support
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Aug 27, 2013, 15:03 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqioyrfa5m.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <1377577567-27655-1-git-send-email-nico@fluxnic.net>
Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net> writes:
Show 13 quoted lines
> Subject says it all... at last ! > > This can also be fetched here: > > git://git.linaro.org/people/nico/git > > Demonstration of what it does at the moment: > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/233038 > > I'd like to preserve the author time stamps as they relate to where in > the world I was when the corresponding code was written. You'll notice > I didn't work on the code in the same order as it is now presented.
We can also notice things like "From: user@machine.(none)" ;-)
> Still open question: what to do with a thin pack. Should we really > complete it with local objects upon reception, or were we only over > paranoid at the time we imposed this rule?
I do not think paranoia had much to do with it. I am afraid that allowing a delta in a pack to depend on a base in another pack means that the former pack becomes unusable without the latter, which would make object store management (e.g. partial repacking) a lot more cumbersome, no?