Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Also I suspect that having to show the size of a tree object, >>> expressed in terms of the canonical representation, might >>> force packv4 aware ls-tree to convert its traversal efficient >>> representation to the canonical one only to get its size. >> >> It still will be accessible, but perhaps it would be less efficient >> with v4 pack. It is I think acceptable that -l needs more CPU (and I/O) >> time... > > Shawn answered this better than I could. I am moderately > negative on the size of tree objects part. > > But modulo these details, I agree that being able to get the > size of each blob would be useful. We can always return ' ', '-', or '0' as size for tree entries. I wonder what to do about commits/gitlinks/subprojects... -- Jakub Narebski Poland - 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
