Re: [PATCH 00/30] [RFC] Path-walk API and applications

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> ... I can see an argument for either direction: having a new hash
> algorithm provides a smaller change to get most of the results for the
> full repack case, but gets worse performance in many push scenarios.
> This is the point of an RFC, to get questions like this worked out based
> on the "big picture" view of everything.

Exactly.  We might want to use the series as an example in our
developer docs on how to propose a large-ish effort.

> Perhaps I should pause the --full-name-hash topic and focus on getting
> the --path-walk topic up and running. I am curious to hear from folks
> who are currently running Git servers about their thoughts on these
> trade-offs and potential uses in their environment. My needs on the
> client side are solved by the --path-walk approach.

Yeah, such third-party inputs would be very useful.

Thanks.




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux