Re: [WISH] Store also tag dereferences in packed-refs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
>> ... I mean you trust (use) reference
>> info from packed-refs, but don't trust lack of dereference in
>> packed-refs.
> 
> That is exactly what the code does (at least that was the intent;
> there could be bugs since I am not Linus ;-).

The question is: is it more common case to have very large number
of heavyweight tags, or is it more common case to have very large
number of lightweight tags (refs to commit objects).

In the latter case the solution to not trust lack of dereference
means no gain in performance (although for the core checking type
of object is faster (much faster?) than depeeling tag, so the gain
wouldn't be large), although the solution is probably safer.

Still, the decision: do not trust the lack of dereference in
packed-refs, or mark packed-refs as having dereferences and trust
lack of dereferences, is fairly orthogonal to the format for depeel
in packed-refs.


P.S. I have just noticed that you have taken the discussion
off-list...
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
-
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]