On 5/8/07, Junio C Hamano <junkio@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"Dana How" <danahow@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 5/8/07, Junio C Hamano <junkio@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> Dana How <danahow@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > This applies on top of the git-repack --max-pack-size patchset. >> Hmph, that makes the --max-pack-size patchset take this more >> trivial and straightforward improvements hostage. In general, >> I'd prefer more elaborate ones based on less questionable >> series. > The max-pack-size and pack.compression patches touch the same lines. > I thought my options were: > * Submit independently and make you merge; or > * Make one precede the other. > Since max-pack-size has been out there since April 4 and > the first acceptable version was May 1 (suggested by 0 comments), > I didn't realize it was a "questionable series". No, what I meant was that it is much "more elaborate" series than this custom compression which is much "less questionable". I think this custom compression is 1.5.2 material. I have not studied the code for the max-pack-size enough to be confident to put it in 1.5.2, at least not yet, and was planning to park the latter in 'next' until 1.5.2 final.
OK, thanks for guesstimating the overall schedule. I was starting to wonder what the next step(s) should be. I will incorporate your & Nicolas's comments and send out a new custom compression patch tomorrow. I *think* I addressed everyone's comments on max-pack-size, but let me know if you find anything else when you get around to it. Thanks, -- Dana L. How danahow@xxxxxxxxx +1 650 804 5991 cell - 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
