Re: Change set based shallow clone

[Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>]

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> As you know I've shelved the 64-bit offset stuff.  My preference
> is to base it on 106d710b but basing it on 'next' would be fine.
> Between 106d710b and next there is only one unrelated change to
> sha1_file.c, which is the hexval[] change that is in 'master'.

OK.  I'll rebase on 106d710b and try to get the series out in a day
or two.
 
> So far I liked the per-object-type dictionary conjecture the
> most, primarily because my gut feeling tells me that it would
> involve the least amount of hassle in the interoperability area.

Agreed, except I don't think its going to save us very much (~4%)
and its enough of a change still to make things a little ugly.
If the "true" dictionary compression idea has any value it may
save us even more and make it easier to implement fast full text
searching across files.  But its definately more complex.  So I'm
going to shut up now.
 
> But honestly speaking I am not looking forward to a packfile
> format update at this moment.  I'd like things to settle down a
> bit now, after merging good bits from 'next' to 'master' and
> declare 1.4.3 first, perhaps by the end of the month.

No worry there.  I won't have enough time between now and the end
of this month to create a dictionary pack that's even ready for pu,
let alone next.  I hope we see 1.4.3 before then.  :-)

-- 
Shawn.