From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@horizon.com Subject: Re: A look at some alternative PACK file encodings Date: 7 Sep 2006 15:16:22 -0400 Message-ID: <20060907191622.7597.qmail@science.horizon.com> References: Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, gitzilla@gmail.com X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Sep 07 21:16:49 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GLPMi-0003OG-Ml for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 07 Sep 2006 21:16:45 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751440AbWIGTQY (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Sep 2006 15:16:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751842AbWIGTQY (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Sep 2006 15:16:24 -0400 Received: from science.horizon.com ([192.35.100.1]:44861 "HELO science.horizon.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751440AbWIGTQX (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Sep 2006 15:16:23 -0400 Received: (qmail 7598 invoked by uid 1000); 7 Sep 2006 15:16:22 -0400 To: linux@horizon.com, nico@cam.org In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: > So I don't think we would gain that much using that encoding > unless/until the pack format is made completely incompatible due to > other changes, and that's something we should try to avoid as much as > possible anyway. Ah, I'm sorry; I didn't realize that it was already used elsewhere in the pack format and this was just code re-use. That is indeed a good reason to stick with what's already there. I agree the savings are minimal, but if you're starting from scratch, they're free, so why not use them? I tried to show that the code complexity is truly negligible. I'm sorry I didn't realize the details of pack structure before.