From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Shawn O. Pearce" Subject: Re: [EGIT PATCH 5/5] Cache resolved ids in quickdiff document for faster update Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:43:32 -0700 Message-ID: <20090405214332.GC23604@spearce.org> References: <1238697991-12990-1-git-send-email-robin.rosenberg@dewire.com> <1238697991-12990-6-git-send-email-robin.rosenberg@dewire.com> <20090405203604.GP23521@spearce.org> <200904052340.01864.robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Robin Rosenberg X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Apr 05 23:45:15 2009 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 1Lqa9K-0007Hb-OP for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 05 Apr 2009 23:45:07 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755553AbZDEVnf (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Apr 2009 17:43:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754774AbZDEVne (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Apr 2009 17:43:34 -0400 Received: from george.spearce.org ([209.20.77.23]:46243 "EHLO george.spearce.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754717AbZDEVne (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Apr 2009 17:43:34 -0400 Received: by george.spearce.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 633B038211; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 21:43:32 +0000 (UTC) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200904052340.01864.robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Robin Rosenberg wrote: > s?ndag 05 april 2009 22:36:04 skrev "Shawn O. Pearce" : > > Arrrgh. We're still using Commit/Tree/TreeEntry to read file paths? > > > > I'm applying this as-is, but we really need to start to transition > > away from them. I wanted to start deleting the mapCommit and its > > friends from the Repository class. > > Yeah, but the new API is more awkward and error-prone to use. The old > API is quite straightforward. I see. Then I failed. What can we do to reduce that? > I will try harder next time. Shouldn't be necessary. :-) -- Shawn.