On Tue, 2016-03-01 at 08:31 +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 7:53 AM, David Turner < > dtur...@twopensource.com> wrote: > > +Weaknesses: > > +----------- > > + > > +The reflog format is somewhat inefficient: a binary format could > > store > > +reflog date/time information in somewhat less space. > > This raises an interesting question. What if we want to change lmdb > format in future (e.g. to address this weakness)? Do we need some > sort > of versioning in lmdb database? I suppose you can always add "lmdb2" > backend that shares most of the code with current lmdb backend. Not > sure if that's what you had in mind though.
The weakness of versioning inside the LMDB database is that in order to check the version, you need to already have LMDB. That's the argument for "lmdb2". I had sort of hoped that this version would be "good enough" that we could avoid modifying it. So maybe that means we ought to address the reflog format. But I'm not sure that it's that big a deal. What do you think? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
