From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Shawn O. Pearce" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Flag and skip over packfiles known to be invalid. Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 00:02:37 -0500 Message-ID: <20070204050237.GD16766@spearce.org> References: <20070202080010.GB21094@spearce.org> <7virelhsae.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20070202085108.GC20832@spearce.org> <7vr6t7bxsn.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Feb 04 06:02:43 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HDZWU-00073r-PB for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 04 Feb 2007 06:02:43 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752073AbXBDFCl (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Feb 2007 00:02:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752076AbXBDFCl (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Feb 2007 00:02:41 -0500 Received: from corvette.plexpod.net ([64.38.20.226]:52115 "EHLO corvette.plexpod.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752073AbXBDFCk (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Feb 2007 00:02:40 -0500 Received: from cpe-74-70-48-173.nycap.res.rr.com ([74.70.48.173] helo=asimov.home.spearce.org) by corvette.plexpod.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HDZWE-0007bh-HU; Sun, 04 Feb 2007 00:02:26 -0500 Received: by asimov.home.spearce.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 98B8F20FBAE; Sun, 4 Feb 2007 00:02:37 -0500 (EST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vr6t7bxsn.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - corvette.plexpod.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - spearce.org X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Shawn O. Pearce" writes: > > > I almost submitted a patch to do that tonight, but I couldn't decide > > on behavior: should we scan known packs, then try for loose, then > > scan packs again until no object or no new pack is found? Probably. > > Hmmm. Probably. > > But I tend to think that this particular failure scenario is > probably rare enough that plugging this in "the right way" is > not a high priority. We should definitely revisit it post > 1.5.0. Indeed. I'll come back to it after 1.5.0 is out. > Also if we are adding a bitfield, I think pack_local should also > become one, as it currently wastes a whole word to hold one bit > (on the other hand if we do not want to add a field I think a > different negative value in pack_fd could mean "do not bother to > look at it again"). Good point. I forgot about that ~4 byte boolean hanging around. As a comment on the TDWTF might say, "Yes, No, FileNotFound, 42, 192, 1088, ... these are all valid values for pack_local!" :-) -- Shawn.