On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 05:33:16PM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote: > Instead of keeping a pointer to the ref_store in every ref_dir entry, > store it once in `struct ref_cache`, and change `struct ref_dir` to > include a pointer to its containing `ref_cache` instead. This makes it > easier to add to the information that is stored in `struct ref_cache` > without inflating the size of the individual entries. This last sentence confused me. It's a pointer either way, no? Do you just mean that we are free to add whatever we like to the "ref_cache" without polluting the "ref_store" that is a more public data structure? -Peff