Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/24] Index-v5

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 20:07:02 -0700

Duy Nguyen <[email-masked]> writes:

> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Thomas Gummerer <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> I'm done reviewing this version (I neglected the extension writing
> patches because after spending hours on the main write patch I don't
> want to look at them anymore :p). Now that rc period is over, with a
> partial write proof-of-concept, I think it's enough to call Junio's
> attention on the series, see if we have any chance of merging it. The
> partial write POC is needed to make sure we don't overlook anything,
> just support update-index is enough.

I've been following the review comment threads after looking at the
patches myself when they were posted. I was hoping to see some API
improvement over the current "we (have to) have everything available
in-core in a flat array" model, which gives a lot of convenience and
IO overhead at the same time, that would make me say "yes, this
operation, that we need to do very often, will certainly be helped
by this new API, and in order to support that style of API better,
the current file format is inadequate and we do need to go to the
proposed tree like on-disk format" for at least one, but
unfortunately I haven't found any (yet).

So...