Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Shawn O. Pearce, Wed, Aug 20, 2008 21:44:07 +0200:
> >
> > We could pick any number for the limit, just so long as its so
> > large that the size of the reflog for it to be a valid @{nth}
> > request would be something like 1 TB, and thus be highly unlikely.
> >
> > I was just trying to be cute by using the original commit timestamp
> > of Git itself. Perhaps 12936648 (1TB / 83)?
>
> How about the maximum value the platform's size_t can handle?
So on 64 bit platforms we need to wait for another 2.92277266
x10^10 years before we will ever see a seconds-since-epoch which
can't possibly be mistaken for a position in the relfog file?
> Not because it is "highly unlikely", but because you and me frankly
> have no idea exactly how unlikely for example a "12936648 terabytes" is?
I have half a brain. Creating 12 million reflog entries would
typically require 12 million git-update-ref forks. Anyone who is
doing that many since reflog was introduced and has not yet truncated
their reflog _really_ should reconsider what they are using it for.
Evaluating foo@{12936648} will be _horribly_ expensive. Anyone who
is waiting for that result and _cares_ about it would have already
started asking on the list for a reflog which is not based on a
flat file. If they have already patched their Git to use something
else (e.g. gdbm) I have no pity for them when this changes/breaks
as they clearly have already patched their Git rather heavily.
--
Shawn.
--
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
