From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: 1.3.0 creating bigger packs than 1.2.3 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:24:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <20060420133640.GA31198@spearce.org> <20060420150315.GB31198@spearce.org> <20060420164351.GB31738@spearce.org> <20060420175554.GH31738@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: Linus Torvalds , Git Mailing List X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Apr 20 20:25:03 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 1FWdpP-0005Oo-Jn for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:24:32 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751003AbWDTSY3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:24:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751209AbWDTSY3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:24:29 -0400 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:36643 "EHLO relais.videotron.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751003AbWDTSY2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:24:28 -0400 Received: from xanadu.home ([74.56.108.184]) by VL-MO-MR004.ip.videotron.ca (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-2.05 (built Apr 28 2005)) with ESMTP id <0IY100A189SRC0I0@VL-MO-MR004.ip.videotron.ca> for git@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:24:27 -0400 (EDT) In-reply-to: <20060420175554.GH31738@spearce.org> X-X-Sender: nico@localhost.localdomain To: Shawn Pearce Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Shawn Pearce wrote: > The more that I think about it the more it seems possible that the > pathname hashing is what may be causing the problem. Not only did > bisect point to 1d6b38cc76c348e2477506ca9759fc241e3d0d46 but the > directory which contains the bulk of the space has many files with > the same name located in different directories: [...] But the bad commit according to your bisection talks about "thin" packs which are not involved in your case. So something looks fishy with that commit which should not have touched path hashing in the non-thin pack case... I think... Nicolas