Re: git and larger trees, not so fast?

Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] writes:

On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

While I do not think the previous one was hacky at all, this one
IS a hack, not meant for inclusion.

...
Sadly, that removal is required for some of the other cases, so it's not 
like we can remove the remove. But we could *possibly* make things 
ridiculously much faster by making the remove a lazy thing, and if the 
next index operation just adds it back in, we wouldn't move things around.

Heh, that makes the two of us.  I have been wanting to revamp or
kill off unpack-trees for quite some time, and after all the
patch you are responding to might be a small first step in the
right direction ;-).