"Dana How" [off-list ref] writes:
On 5/8/07, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Dana How [off-list ref] writes:
...
quoted
This applies on top of the git-repack --max-pack-size patchset.
quoted
Hmph, that makes the --max-pack-size patchset take this more
trivial and straightforward improvements hostage. In general,
I'd prefer more elaborate ones based on less questionable
series.
The max-pack-size and pack.compression patches touch the same lines.
I thought my options were:
* Submit independently and make you merge; or
* Make one precede the other.
Since max-pack-size has been out there since April 4 and
the first acceptable version was May 1 (suggested by 0 comments),
I didn't realize it was a "questionable series".
No, what I meant was that it is much "more elaborate" series
than this custom compression which is much "less questionable".
I think this custom compression is 1.5.2 material. I have not
studied the code for the max-pack-size enough to be confident to
put it in 1.5.2, at least not yet, and was planning to park the
latter in 'next' until 1.5.2 final.
On 5/8/07, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
"Dana How" [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On 5/8/07, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Dana How [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
This applies on top of the git-repack --max-pack-size patchset.
Hmph, that makes the --max-pack-size patchset take this more
trivial and straightforward improvements hostage. In general,
I'd prefer more elaborate ones based on less questionable
series.
The max-pack-size and pack.compression patches touch the same lines.
I thought my options were:
* Submit independently and make you merge; or
* Make one precede the other.
Since max-pack-size has been out there since April 4 and
the first acceptable version was May 1 (suggested by 0 comments),
I didn't realize it was a "questionable series".
No, what I meant was that it is much "more elaborate" series
than this custom compression which is much "less questionable".
I think this custom compression is 1.5.2 material. I have not
studied the code for the max-pack-size enough to be confident to
put it in 1.5.2, at least not yet, and was planning to park the
latter in 'next' until 1.5.2 final.
OK, thanks for guesstimating the overall schedule. I was starting to wonder
what the next step(s) should be.
I will incorporate your & Nicolas's comments and send out a new custom
compression patch tomorrow. I *think* I addressed everyone's comments
on max-pack-size, but let me know if you find anything else when you get
around to it.
Thanks,
--
Dana L. How danahow@gmail.com +1 650 804 5991 cell