Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:
"Shawn O. Pearce" [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
I was intentionally slating this for maint, to fix a bug a user
reported when handling large streams.
I personally see that as adding a new feature (especially with new option
and config).
Sorry, but I take it back. The new codepath triggers even without any
explicit request and _fixes_ the situation where old code simply failed,
so it is worth queuing for the maintenance track.
Do you want to do the deflatebound thing, or are we Ok without?
Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
"Shawn O. Pearce" [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
I was intentionally slating this for maint, to fix a bug a user
reported when handling large streams.
I personally see that as adding a new feature (especially with new option
and config).
Sorry, but I take it back. The new codepath triggers even without any
explicit request and _fixes_ the situation where old code simply failed,
so it is worth queuing for the maintenance track.
Thanks.
Do you want to do the deflatebound thing, or are we Ok without?
No, I think we're OK without it. The pack size limit stuff is only
a rough guess anyway. I never meant for us to be sticking to it to
within a byte. It was only meant to keep us from shoving a 100 MiB
blob onto the end of a pack once we got close to the size requested
by the user.
--
Shawn.