From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: git status: small difference between stating whole repository and small subdirectory Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:00:44 -0400 Message-ID: <20120410180044.GA23758@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <7vaa4hrtbe.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120217222912.GC31830@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20120220140653.GC5131@sigill.intra.peff.net> <87ty2l38ay.fsf@thomas.inf.ethz.ch> <20120220143644.GA13938@do> <7vvcmzczku.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vbomzqzuc.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Piotr Krukowiecki , Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy , Thomas Rast , Git Mailing List To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Apr 10 20:00:55 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SHfN7-00045J-PX for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:00:54 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755000Ab2DJSAr (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:00:47 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:56097 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753438Ab2DJSAq (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:00:46 -0400 Received: (qmail 31496 invoked by uid 107); 10 Apr 2012 18:00:51 -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; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:00:51 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:00:44 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vbomzqzuc.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 Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 09:23:59AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > could I ask what is the status of this? There were some patches > > posted, but I think nothing final? > > I do not think you meant to address your inquiry to me, but I think these > patches tried out some ideas, got issues discovered in them and then got > abandoned before resulting in a working code that is ready for testing. Yes. I think we decided that we needed some pretty good testing to add the cache_tree handling back into unpack_trees. I'd still like to do that testing, but haven't done it yet. -Peff