Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > The only downside might be performance. For sane cases, I think scanning > the new alternates is OK. I know Eric (cc'd) has some crazy > 100k-alternate setup (from 407532f82d, etc), but I'd expect a reprepare > there is already expensive (we already have to re-scan every one of > those directories for packfiles, and throw out any loose object caches). I'm not sure if that 100k alternate thing is happening, yet... (initial specs called for ~30k, but I figured it might grow) If it does, I'm thinking about enhancing --batch-command, to support `add-alternate' to dynamically add alternates while running cat-file. Right now, my biggest use case is only 250 alternates or so.
