Junio C Hamano <junkio@xxxxxxx> wrote: > "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > I almost submitted a patch to do that tonight, but I couldn't decide > > on behavior: should we scan known packs, then try for loose, then > > scan packs again until no object or no new pack is found? Probably. > > Hmmm. Probably. > > But I tend to think that this particular failure scenario is > probably rare enough that plugging this in "the right way" is > not a high priority. We should definitely revisit it post > 1.5.0. Indeed. I'll come back to it after 1.5.0 is out. > Also if we are adding a bitfield, I think pack_local should also > become one, as it currently wastes a whole word to hold one bit > (on the other hand if we do not want to add a field I think a > different negative value in pack_fd could mean "do not bother to > look at it again"). Good point. I forgot about that ~4 byte boolean hanging around. As a comment on the TDWTF might say, "Yes, No, FileNotFound, 42, 192, 1088, ... these are all valid values for pack_local!" :-) -- Shawn. - 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