Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/23] Preliminary pack v4 support

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 08:03:49 -0700

Nicolas Pitre <[email-masked]> writes:

> Subject says it all... at last !
>
> This can also be fetched here:
>
> 	git://git.linaro.org/people/nico/git
>
> Demonstration of what it does at the moment:
>
> 	http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/233038
>
> I'd like to preserve the author time stamps as they relate to where in
> the world I was when the corresponding code was written.  You'll notice
> I didn't work on the code in the same order as it is now presented.

We can also notice things like "From: user@machine.(none)" ;-)

> Still open question: what to do with a thin pack.  Should we really
> complete it with local objects upon reception, or were we only over
> paranoid at the time we imposed this rule?

I do not think paranoia had much to do with it.  I am afraid that
allowing a delta in a pack to depend on a base in another pack means
that the former pack becomes unusable without the latter, which
would make object store management (e.g. partial repacking) a lot
more cumbersome, no?