From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: git and larger trees, not so fast? Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:02:36 -0700 Message-ID: <7vtzr8wemb.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <20070809163026.GD568@mbox.bz> <7vmyx0y3vp.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7v7io4xwvp.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20070809165218.9b76ebf7.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Sean , moe , git@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Aug 10 00:02:43 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IJG5b-0003sj-BD for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 00:02:43 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752956AbXHIWCj (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 18:02:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753218AbXHIWCj (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 18:02:39 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao101.cox.net ([68.230.241.45]:62051 "EHLO fed1rmmtao101.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752940AbXHIWCi (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 18:02:38 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao101.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20070809220237.PSUJ2095.fed1rmmtao101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>; Thu, 9 Aug 2007 18:02:37 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id Zy2c1X00A1kojtg0000000; Thu, 09 Aug 2007 18:02:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Thu, 9 Aug 2007 14:46:41 -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: > On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >> So "builtin-read-tree.c" (or rather unpack-trees.c) would need the same >> kind of logic. > > The path seems to be: > > cmd_read_tree -> > unpack_trees -> > unpack_trees_rec -> > [ recursive .. unpack_trees_rec ] -> > oneway_merge -> > keep_entry -> > add_index_entry() > > and here again we end up having the same insertion sort issue. Quite honestly, I was this (shows the "thumb and index finger almost touching" gesture) close to declare that unpack-trees is unsalvageable, and was planning to redo the one-tree (and perhaps two-tree) read-tree without using that mess after 1.5.3.