Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Oct 2013, #06; Fri, 25)

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:41:35 -0700

Vicent Martí <[email-masked]> writes:

> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>> jk/pack-bitmap adds khash.h, which from a first glance looks like yet
>>> another hash table implementation. I was just wondering if kb's new
>>> hash tables can cover the need of pack-bitmap.c too so we can remove
>>> khash.h later..
>> ...
> khash on the other hand is capable of storing the position values as
> part of the hash table itself (i.e. `int **buckets`), and saves us
> from thousands of bytes of allocations + indirection.

My "Good thinking ;-)" comment was primarily meant as "somebody
needs to at least think about the possibility and consider pros and
cons", and you thought about it already ;-).

In short, kb's hash table does not cover the need for pack-bitmap,
so we should keep two at least for now, until (and/or unless) either
side can be shown (and/or extended) to cover the need for the other
one as well.

Thanks.