Re: Why are ref_lists sorted?

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

 



"Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> We already have the ISPACKED flag in the flags field to tell us if
> the ref is loose or not.  When inserting a ref into the hash table
> you keep the loose version (either if its in the table, or the one
> being inserted).

As long as you are careful enough not to break the unwrapped
entries, repacking and re-reading of refs (I think these three
are the reasons we have separate lists), I am fine with that
change.  I also think some callers of do_for_each_refs (this
includes the userland that use git-for-each-ref and/or
git-show-ref) expect the traversal to be sorted, so I would like
to keep that sorted output behaviour.

An additional hash to speed up look-up operation is probably a
good thing to have.

-
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]