On Monday 26 February 2007, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > Nico and I are neck deep in our pack version 4 topic. That topic > hits all of the same code you touched with your patch. It looked like that may have been the case; but I figured it wouldn't hurt. I've been coping with the 'too-small' index issue for about a year now, and have been on IRC and kept at least a lazy eye on it hoping that it would be attended to. I've decided I need to start doing some C coding again, and it seemed to be as good an itch as any to scratch... > Our topic also requires us to change the index file format, and > in doing so we have decided to extend the index records to look > something like the following[*1*]: > > object SHA-1 > 64-bit offset within packfile > 32-bit index of next object in packfile > > The latter field is to help pack-objects reuse existing packfile > data, as today it needs to sort everything on its own on the fly. > Having that last field of data will help avoid that, and will keep > the index nicely aligned for 64-bit accesses to the offset. Exactly why I left the packfile itself alone. Well, that and laziness. I may have a huge repository, but I don't have single files so large that it needs a 32-bit index for the next object in the packfile. Most of the things that large I've seen are binary anyway. > I want to say your patch shouldn't be merged without even bothering > to review it. No hard feelings on my part, it was as much a learning thing for me as anything else. > The last time I was in this part of the git code > (implementing sliding mmap window) Nico and Junio also both went in > here and rewrote huge chunks. Their changes prevented sliding mmap > window from applying. It was 6 months before I got back around to > rewriting the patch. Ouch. > Right now I'm neck deep in pack v4. I hope to have the topic in > pu-ready state by some time mid-next week, hopefully in time for > Junio's git day. I'm very unlikely to have the time to rewrite the > topic again until late June/July if something like your patch goes > in now. > > So would you mind waiting a couple of weeks for 64 bit indexes? All I'm concerned with is being able to handle my (huge) source repository with git. I wrote the patch in the hopes that it would accelerate the process, and that I'd learn something. If all I have to do is wait that's fine. I figured I'd at least be able to bring an idea or two to the table. If the code doesn't get accepted, but still get the desired functionality, I still met 1/2 of my goals in doing it. -- Troy Telford - 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