From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Example Cogito Addon - cogito-bundle Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:46:55 -0700 Message-ID: <7vac3tx900.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <20061018053647.GA3507@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20061018185225.GU20017@pasky.or.cz> <20061018185907.GV20017@pasky.or.cz> <7vy7rd1m4q.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20061018191834.GA18829@spearce.org> <20061018204626.GA19194@spearce.org> <20061018214143.GF19194@spearce.org> <7vwt6xxofi.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Oct 19 05:47:05 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GaOs4-0001iH-2o for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 05:47:04 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1423247AbWJSDq6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:46:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1423245AbWJSDq6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:46:58 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao12.cox.net ([68.230.241.27]:23745 "EHLO fed1rmmtao12.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423248AbWJSDq5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:46:57 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao12.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20061019034656.YEIT18180.fed1rmmtao12.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:46:56 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id c3mi1V00V1kojtg0000000 Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:46:43 -0400 To: Linus Torvalds In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:07:57 -0700 (PDT)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Linus Torvalds writes: > Actually, I've hit an impasse. > > So there's _another_ way of fixing a thin pack: it's to expand the objects > without a base into non-delta objects, and keeping the number of objects > in the pack the same. But _again_, we don't actually know which ones to > expand until it's too late. pack-objects.c::write_one() makes sure that we write out base immediately after delta if we haven't written out its base yet, so I suspect if you buffer one delta you should be Ok, no?