Re: [PATCH 3/6] Stop producing index version 2

Shawn Pearce [off-list ref] writes:

<thinking type="wishful" probability="never-happen"
probably-inflating-flame-from="linus">

I have long wanted to scrap the current index format. I unfortunately
don't have the time to do it myself. But I suspect there may be a lot
of gains by making the index format match the canonical tree format
better by keeping the tree structure within a single file stream,
nesting entries below their parent directory, and keeping tree SHA-1
data along with the directory entry.

I suspect that is not so "never-happen wishful thinking".

In an earlier message, I alluded to a data structure that starts with a
single top-level tree entry that is lazily expanded as the index entries
are updated. The above shows that at least two of us share the same (day)
dream, and I suspect there are others that share the same "gut feeling"
that such a tree-based structure would be the way to do large index right.

It would be a large and possibly painful change, but the good thing is
that the index is a local matter and we won't have to worry too much about
a flag day event.

</thinking>