Shawn Pearce <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > <thinking type="wishful" probability="never-happen" > probably-inflating-flame-from="linus"> > > I have long wanted to scrap the current index format. I unfortunately > don't have the time to do it myself. But I suspect there may be a lot > of gains by making the index format match the canonical tree format > better by keeping the tree structure within a single file stream, > nesting entries below their parent directory, and keeping tree SHA-1 > data along with the directory entry. I suspect that is not so "never-happen wishful thinking". In an earlier message, I alluded to a data structure that starts with a single top-level tree entry that is lazily expanded as the index entries are updated. The above shows that at least two of us share the same (day) dream, and I suspect there are others that share the same "gut feeling" that such a tree-based structure would be the way to do large index right. It would be a large and possibly painful change, but the good thing is that the index is a local matter and we won't have to worry too much about a flag day event. </thinking> -- 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