Re: Funnies with "git fetch"

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

 



On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 08:09:49PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> You may be slightly misunderstanding the series.
> [...]
> The current code does not try to make sure we really have the objects
> necessary to connect the updated tips to our original refs at all.  Not
> just blobs but neither commits nor trees are traversed. The new check in
> store_updated_refs() is about that. So in that sense, the series is not
> about "just blobs".

Ah, OK, I see. I was too focused on pulling the bits out of quickfetch
into check_everything_connected, and missed the important new call in
store_updated_refs.

So what you are doing makes sense to me. I am curious, though, what the
performance impact is like. In particular, it seems that we will pull
each blob into memory via parse_object. Until now, we were mostly
streaming the blobs straight into packs. That makes me a little nervous
given the discussions recently about large blobs, and not accessing them
unnecessarily. But maybe that is a silly concern, as we will have just
reconstructed and hashed such an object anyway to get its name.

-Peff
--
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]