Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 12:07:37AM CEST, I got a letter
where "Luck, Tony" <[email protected]> told me that...
..snip..
> >Hey, I may end up being wrong, and yes, maybe I should have done a
> >two-level one. The good news is that we can trivially fix it later (even
> >dynamically - we can make the "sha1 object tree layout" be a per-tree
> >config option, and there would be no real issue, so you could make small
> >projects use a flat version and big projects use a very deep structure
> >etc). You'd just have to script some renames to move the files around.
>
> It depends on how many eco-system shell scripts get built that need to
> know about the layout ... if some shell/perl "libraries" encode this
> filename layout (and people use them) ... then switching later would
> indeed be painless.
FWIW, my short-term plans include support for monotone-like hash ID
shortening - it's enough to use the shortest leading unique part of the
ID to identify the revision. I will poke to the object repository for
that. I also already have Randy Dunlap's git lsobj, which will list all
objects of a specified type (very useful especially when looking for
orphaned commits and such rather lowlevel work).
--
Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
98% of the time I am right. Why worry about the other 3%.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
