On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > A Large Angry SCM <gitzilla@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > >> Nick Edelen <sirnot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> Hrmm, I just realized that it dosn't actually cache paths/names... > >> > >> You may not need the path name, but instead the hash value that > >> pack-objects computes from the path name. > > > > Please do NOT expose the hash values. The hash used by pack-objects is > > an implementation detail of the heuristics used by the _current_ > > object packing code. It would be a real shame to have to maintain > > backward compatibility with it at some future date after the packing > > machinery has changed. > > This is a local cache. If there was a version number in the header, and > the hash function changes, we could just bump the version number and > invalidate all of the caches. > > No sense in storing (and doing IO of) huge duplicate string values for > something where we really only need 32 bits, and where a recompute from > scratch only costs a minute. FWIW it was this redundancy in duplicate (unpacked) string redundancy I meant, but I did a poor job at expressing myself, and consequently Nick did not understand what I want (and I'm on a slow connection, so I deleted the mail halfway through looking if there are some real answers hidden in the huge quoted part instead of replying). And the fragility of the dependency to the implementation detail of the pack index suggests to me that my intuition that this whole thing should be more tightly integrated with the pack index was not totally off the mark. Ciao, Dscho -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html