From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] Change 'Deltifying objects' to 'Delta compressing objects' Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:29:30 -0400 Message-ID: <20071019042930.GA16487@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20071019021255.GD3290@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20071019022154.GY14735@spearce.org> <20071019023425.GB8298@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20071019030749.GA9274@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20071019033228.GA10697@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20071019035647.GA18717@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Nicolas Pitre , "Shawn O. Pearce" , git@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Oct 19 06:29:50 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IijUY-0008W2-TD for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 06:29:47 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752159AbXJSE3f (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:29:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752042AbXJSE3f (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:29:35 -0400 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:1845 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752156AbXJSE3f (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:29:35 -0400 Received: (qmail 9101 invoked by uid 111); 19 Oct 2007 04:29:32 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with SMTP; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:29:32 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:29:30 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 09:21:55PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > I'd love it, but the way our current SHA1 parser works, I don't think it > can really do it. > > Basically, we currently assume that a SHA1 expression always expands to a > *single* SHA1. Ah, right. I hadn't thought of that. While it would be a nice convenience feature, it's probably not worth the deep internal hackery that would be required. -Peff