From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] Narrow/Sparse checkout round 3: Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:06:33 -0700 Message-ID: <7viqtxcr1i.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20080815142439.GA10609@laptop> <7v1w0pdze0.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vbpzs9om7.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7v3al49nos.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Eric Raible X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Aug 19 11:10:36 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KVNBz-0004Sg-IM for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:07:55 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753426AbYHSJGv (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2008 05:06:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753302AbYHSJGv (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2008 05:06:51 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:49506 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752126AbYHSJGu (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2008 05:06:50 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 043FF5A74D; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 05:06:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-211.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5DE315A74C; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 05:06:45 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 273D691C-6DCE-11DD-A247-B29498D589B0-77302942!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Eric Raible writes: > s/but we would need to have/but we may need/ > in the commit message? Yeah, strictly speaking, perhaps. One thing that I refuse to believe is we will need only one more bit and after assigning the 0x4000 bit to whatever that single purpose the index will stay that way forever. So we would need to reserve that bit as the extension bit in any case. If we do not have any extension forever, that means any index entry with the bit set is corrupt, so erroring out would be the right thing to do anyway ;-).