From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: What's in git.git (stable) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:51:38 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: References: <7v8x27iui1.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vd4r24ox6.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vir0o44mt.fsf_-_@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vtzk7xqg3.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Jakub Narebski , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Feb 17 21:52:30 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JQqUr-0003lz-Sc for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:52:26 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753026AbYBQUvv (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:51:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752893AbYBQUvu (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:51:50 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:46724 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752691AbYBQUvu (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:51:50 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2008 20:51:48 -0000 Received: from host86-138-198-40.range86-138.btcentralplus.com (EHLO racer.home) [86.138.198.40] by mail.gmx.net (mp048) with SMTP; 17 Feb 2008 21:51:48 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+xl2Rzk5SxRyyZCXU8BHk6UIGKEjpdRoTIrbsqzK 8aqtGvoEvUQdol X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <7vtzk7xqg3.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (LSU 882 2007-12-20) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jakub Narebski writes: > > >> commit: discard index after setting up partial commit > > > > IIRC there was also request for proper solution; this was more a hack. > > It is not a hack at all. > > The more fundamental improvement was along the lines of what I suggested > soon after Kristian's initial round was posted, but what the current > code does is not wrong nor hack. It is about a partial commit after all > and is not performance critical either. You mean: at this point, it is not necessary to be careful about the index, as the index that will be reloaded will already have the most recent timestamps, right? Ciao, Dscho