Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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... The same "the size of this type of object is not given", I would say. - 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
