From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "C. Scott Ananian" Subject: Re: Merge with git-pasky II. Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:31:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <20050414002902.GU25711@pasky.ji.cz> <20050413212546.GA17236@64m.dyndns.org> <20050414004504.GW25711@pasky.ji.cz> <7vfyxtsurd.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7v64ypsqev.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vvf6pr4oq.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20050414121624.GZ25711@pasky.ji.cz> <7vll7lqlbg.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7v7jj5qgdz.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <1113559330.12012.292.camel@baythorne.infradead.org> <1113580881.27227.73.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Linus Torvalds , Junio C Hamano , Petr Baudis , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Apr 15 18:30:18 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DMTgX-00066G-Se for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:28:50 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261470AbVDOQcT (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:32:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261860AbVDOQcT (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:32:19 -0400 Received: from sincerity-forever.csail.mit.edu ([128.30.67.31]:31402 "EHLO sincerity-forever.csail.mit.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261470AbVDOQcQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:32:16 -0400 Received: from catfish.lcs.mit.edu ([128.30.67.25] helo=cag.csail.mit.edu) by sincerity-forever.csail.mit.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1DMTje-0006lF-00; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:32:02 -0400 To: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <1113580881.27227.73.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, David Woodhouse wrote: > given piece of content. Also because we actually have the developer's > attention at commit time, and we can get _real_ answers from the user > about what she was doing, instead of having to guess. Yes, but it's still hard to get *accurate* information. And developers tend to use very short commit messages already... > But if it can be done cheaply enough at a later date even though we end > up repeating ourselves, and if it can be done _well_ enough that we > shouldn't have just asked the user in the first place, then yes, OK I > agree. I think examining the rsync algorithms should convince you that finding common chunks can be fairly efficient. (See my next message for a more concrete proposal.) --scott Rijndael AMLASH Moscow Ft. Bragg shotgun HTKEEPER SHERWOOD overthrow Uzi anthrax Yeltsin Indonesia Suharto LITEMPO Dictionary Yakima KUBARK ( http://cscott.net/ )