Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > I posted an alternative in response to Elijah; the general idea being to > allow the usual object-lookup code to access the in-progress pack. That > would keep us limited to a single pack. If such a mechanism is done in a generic way, would we be able to simplify fast-import a lot, I wonder? IIRC, it had quite a lot of code to remember what it has written to its output to work around the exact issue your alternative tries to solve. In fact, maybe we could make fast-import a thin wrapper around the bulk checkin infrastructure?
