Re: gitpacker progress report and a question

["Eric S. Raymond" <esr@thyrsus.com>]

Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>:
> 1) I tried it, and it doesn't seem to import (pack?) are repository
> with sub-directories in it

I'll make sure my regression test checks this case.  The options to git 
ls-files are a bit confusing and it's possible my invocation of it
needs to change.
 
> 2) Using 'git fast-import' is probably simpler, and more efficient

That might well be.  I'm not worried about "efficiency" in this context 
but reducing the code size is significant and I'm willing to re-code
to do that.
 
> Here is a proof of concept I wrote in ruby that is half the size, and
> seems to implement the same functionality.

Not anywhere near the same.  It only handles commits, not tags. It
doesn't issue delete ops.  And it doesn't rebuild branch heads.
If I were willing to omit those features, I'm sure I could halve
the size of my implementation, too.  Of course, it would then be
almost completely useless...

>                           The format is exactly the
> same, but I think it should be modified to be more efficient.

I'm not wedded to the log format as it is, so I'll cheerfully
take suggestions about it.

Be aware, however, that I consider easy editability by human beings
much more important than squeezing the last microsecond out of the
processing time.  So, for example, I won't use data byte counts rather
than end delimiters, the way import streams do.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>