Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclo...@gmail.com> writes: > This is a minor update to address Ben's comments and add his > measurements in the commit message of 2/4 for the record.
Yay. > I've also checked about the lookahead thing in unpack_trees() to see > if we accidentally break something there, which is my biggest worry. > See [1] and [2] for context, but I believe since we can't have D/F > conflicts, the situation where lookahead is needed will not occur. So > we should be safe. Isn't this about branch switching, where the currently checked out branch may have a regular file 't' and checking out another branch that has directory 't' in it (or vice versa, possibly with the index having either a regular file 't' or requiring 't' to be a diretory by having a blob 't/1' in it)? The log messge of [1] talks about walking three trees together with the index, but even if we limit us to two-tree walk, I do not think that the picture fundamentally changes. So I am not sure how we can confidently say "we can't have D/F". I'd need to block a solid time to take a look at the patches. > [1] da165f470e (unpack-trees.c: prepare for looking ahead in the index - > 2010-01-07) > [2] 730f72840c (unpack-trees.c: look ahead in the index - 2009-09-20) Thanks.
