From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Haggerty Subject: Re: Branch Name Case Sensitivity Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:13:39 +0100 Message-ID: <53105343.2040703@alum.mit.edu> References: <530FA0C1.3000109@web.de> <530FBB1D.3050505@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Karsten Blees , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Torsten_B=F6?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?gershausen?= , Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Lee Hopkins X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Feb 28 10:14:01 2014 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 1WJJW4-0004qJ-7r for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:14:00 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751240AbaB1JNx (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:13:53 -0500 Received: from alum-mailsec-scanner-3.mit.edu ([18.7.68.14]:57863 "EHLO alum-mailsec-scanner-3.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751163AbaB1JNo (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:13:44 -0500 X-AuditID: 1207440e-f79c76d000003e2c-ca-53105346802d Received: from outgoing-alum.mit.edu (OUTGOING-ALUM.MIT.EDU [18.7.68.33]) by alum-mailsec-scanner-3.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id E5.8F.15916.64350135; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:13:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.69.148] (p57A2462E.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [87.162.70.46]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as mhagger@ALUM.MIT.EDU) by outgoing-alum.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id s1S9Demv021194 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:13:41 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131103 Icedove/17.0.10 In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrOKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixO6iqOseLBBs8KnKoutKN5NFQ+8VZouF /46yW6x5/pvJorPjK6MDq8fOWXfZPS5eUvb4vEnO4/azbSwBLFHcNkmJJWXBmel5+nYJ3Blt DzexFqzgqHjX+pOtgfE6WxcjJ4eEgInEn4dLmCFsMYkL99YDxbk4hAQuM0o0XG1lB0kICZxj kjhyIAHE5hXQlrjy+ylYA4uAqsTbm4vABrEJ6Eos6mlmArFFBYIlVl9+wAJRLyhxcuYTMFtE QFli2dlWsAXMAocZJVp2bWcFSQgLaEpcvfCKBWLzb0aJ7a8WgU3iFAiU2Lr4LFARB9B54hI9 jUEgYWYBHYl3fQ+YIWx5ie1v5zBPYBSchWTfLCRls5CULWBkXsUol5hTmqubm5iZU5yarFuc nJiXl1qka6yXm1mil5pSuokREvB8Oxjb18scYhTgYFTi4Z3gyR8sxJpYVlyZe4hRkoNJSZRX yU8gWIgvKT+lMiOxOCO+qDQntfgQowQHs5IIb547UI43JbGyKrUoHyYlzcGiJM6rtkTdT0gg PbEkNTs1tSC1CCYrw8GhJMGrHQTUKFiUmp5akZaZU4KQZuLgBBnOJSVSnJqXklqUWFqSEQ+K 4fhiYBSDpHiA9koFguwtLkjMBYpCtJ5i1OW43fbrE6MQS15+XqqUOO9akCIBkKKM0jy4FbD0 9opRHOhjYV4PkEt4gKkRbtIroCVMQEs4PcGWlCQipKQaGHtXOwj8//R556pS7bnJ4etDT6jP Vgrj4BPxCSkvXRly53P3YbfjFdvUbDuuGm26cLi+hPO98flNNwW7ZC6bdHb5i7Ud Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 02/28/2014 12:38 AM, Lee Hopkins wrote: > [...] Based Michael Haggerty's response, it seems that always > using loose refs would be a better workaround. No, I answered the question "what would be the disadvantages of using only packed refs?". Now I will answer the question "what would be the disadvantages of using only loose refs?": 1. Efficiency. Any time all of the references have to be read, loose refs are far slower than packed refs. 2. Disk space and inode usage: loose refs consume one inode and one disk sector (typically 4k) each, whereas packed refs consume only one inode in total, and many packed refs can fit into each disk sector. After all, there is a reason that we have both packed refs and loose refs. The basic idea is to use packed refs for the bulk of references, especially "cold" references like tags that only change infrequently, but to store "hot" references as loose refs so that they can be modified cheaply. Michael -- Michael Haggerty mhagger@alum.mit.edu http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/