Re: Avery Pennarun's git-subtree?

From: Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@gmail.com>
To: Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@gmail.com>
Cc: "Marc Branchaud" <marcnarc@xiplink.com>,
	"Jakub Narebski" <jnareb@gmail.com>,
	"Jens Lehmann" <Jens.Lehmann@web.de>,
	"Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>,
	"Bryan Larsen" <bryan.larsen@gmail.com>,
	git <git@vger.kernel.org>, "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>,
	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Avery Pennarun's git-subtree?
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 15:07:13 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=Qp5CNCe=V2LCH2_EcTkxSpJ6+EHkk_BmUr9+B@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=LHYDhY=424YZpO3yGqGGsxpY2Sj8=ULNKvAQX@mail.gmail.com>

Heya,

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 17:50, Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@gmail.com> wrote:
> IMHO, the correct answer here is to have an inotify-based daemon prod
> at the .git/index automatically when files get updated, so that git
> itself doesn't have to stat/readdir through the entire tree in order
> to do any of its operations.  (Windows also has something like inotify
> that would work.)  If you had this, then git
> status/diff/checkout/commit would be just as fast with zillions of
> files as with 10 files.  Sooner or later, if nobody implements this, I
> promise I'll get around to it since inotify is actually easy to code
> for :)

From what I've heard both SVN and Mercurial have something like that
and it's incredible unstable and icky and nasty and bad and will eat
your babies. Then again, I don't have any experience with inotify, so
if you say that it's all good and awesome, who am I to doubt that :).

-- 
Cheers,

Sverre Rabbelier