Hi, On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Björn Steinbrink wrote: > On 2008.07.23 14:11:18 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > It may belong to something (stdin) that is consumed. > > Probably thanks to me, babbling about stdin without having a clue what > I'm talking about, that rationale is wrong. > > We may not prune base_cache since that object might come from a > different pack than the one that we are processing. In such a case, we > would try to restore the data for that object from the pack we're > processing and fail miserably. Then the proper fix would be to load the object from that pack again. > The patch itself should be fine. No, since it opens the whole issue of memory explosion again, the same issue Shawn's original patch tried to fix. Ciao, Dscho P.S.: Could you please, please, please cull the part you are not responding to? This mailing list is read by more than 50 people. If you sum up the time it takes them to realize that that quoted part was irrelevant, I am sure you will end up with a larger number of minutes than it would take you to just delete it. Thanks.
