On Jan 17, 2008, at 10:57 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Kevin Ballard wrote:
quoted
On Jan 17, 2008, at 5:22 AM, Wincent Colaiuta wrote:
quoted
While it's a nice workaround, it really is just that (a workaround)
because performance will be suboptimal in a repository running on a
disk image (and many of switched to Git because of its speed).
Not only is it suboptimal, it's also not acceptable, plain and
simple.
If it's not acceptable, do something about it (and I don't mean
writing 50
emails). If you don't want to do something about it, I have to
assume that
you accept it as-is.
I never said I don't want to do anything about it. However, I do
believe that it will take a significant investment of time and energy
to learn all the gooey details of how git handles filenames and how
the index works and all that jazz, which is knowledge that other
people already have. I believe that, for me to solve this problem
independently, it may require so much time that it never gets done
(after all, I am fairly busy). However, if other people who already
have this knowledge are willing to help, that would make this task far
easier, especially given that if nobody else even acknowledges that
this is a problem I don't have much hope of getting a patch accepted.
So again, I'm certainly going to try, but working by myself it simply
may never get done.
-Kevin Ballard
--
Kevin Ballard
http://kevin.sb.org
kevin@sb.org
http://www.tildesoft.com