Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I could do a revert on 'master' if it is really needed, but I found that > the above reasoning is a bit troublesome. The thing is, if a tree to hold > the notes would be huge to be unmanageable, then it would still be huge to > be unmanageable if you split it into 256 pieces. > > I'd rather prefer to see us first try to find a way to optimze the tree > parser. Maybe packv4 or Linus's binary search (which IIRC you declared > would not work --- I recall I once thought about it myself but I do not > recall what my conclusions were) play a role in it. packv4 as proposed wouldn't help a notes tree. It relied on the fact that we'd have no more than 64k unique file names in a repository, and any name which overflowed that 64k limit would force its tree to be a canonical format tree, which is what we are trying to avoid here. -- 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
