From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Barkalow Subject: Re: git and larger trees, not so fast? Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 21:42:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <20070809163026.GD568@mbox.bz> <7vmyx0y3vp.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7v7io4xwvp.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20070809165218.9b76ebf7.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> <7vtzr8wemb.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Linus Torvalds , Sean , moe , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Aug 10 03:42:41 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 1IJJWO-0008Lm-E3 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 03:42:36 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754116AbXHJBmd (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 21:42:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753453AbXHJBmd (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 21:42:33 -0400 Received: from iabervon.org ([66.92.72.58]:1632 "EHLO iabervon.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753863AbXHJBmc (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 21:42:32 -0400 Received: (qmail 10392 invoked by uid 1000); 10 Aug 2007 01:42:30 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Aug 2007 01:42:30 -0000 In-Reply-To: <7vtzr8wemb.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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. Yeah, that's probably the right thing to do; I wrote it with the idea that we'd be doing many-parent merges with it, but merge-recursive turned out to be a better idea, so I designed it to be comprehensible for a complicated case we never actually do. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank*