On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > > > > > > We have thus far reformatted OBJ_TREEs with a new dictionary based > > > compression scheme. In this scheme we pool the filenames and modes > > > that appear within trees into a single table within the packfile. > > > All trees are then converted to use a 22 byte record format: > > > > > > - 2 byte network byte order index into the string pool > > > - 20 byte SHA-1 > > > > Umm. Am I missing something, or is this totally braindamaged? > > > > Are you really expecting there to never be more than 64k basenames? > > Trust me, that's a totally broken assumption. Anything that tracks > > generated stuff will _easily_ have several tens of thousands of random > > filenames even in a single tree, much less over the whole history of the > > repository. > > The sane thing, of course, is to use some sort of prefix coding, together > with an escape code. No. There is a fundamental reason for having a fixed size tree record. Nicolas - 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