From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] parse_object: try internal cache before reading object db Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 17:46:19 -0500 Message-ID: <20120106224619.GA13654@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20120105210001.GA30549@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vipkpn87d.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120106191654.GA11022@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v8vlkjzcj.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120106223324.GB13106@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vmxa0ih6s.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, git-dev@github.com To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jan 06 23:46:26 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RjIYM-0003p3-B5 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 23:46:26 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759061Ab2AFWqW (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jan 2012 17:46:22 -0500 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:59724 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759030Ab2AFWqV (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jan 2012 17:46:21 -0500 Received: (qmail 9666 invoked by uid 107); 6 Jan 2012 22:53:13 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:53:13 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:46:19 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vmxa0ih6s.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 02:45:15PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Did you want to leave the parse_object optimization until next cycle, > > too? It's not loosening checks, but it's such a core piece of code that > > it makes me nervous somebody somewhere is abusing "struct object" in a > > way that will break it. > > I was just updating the "What's cooking" report and my current thinking is > that we should keep all three in "next" to give it a bit of exposure for > now, and merge them to "master" early in the 1.7.10 cycle. That sounds perfect. Thanks. -Peff