From b0518fe3ceb57a90c9fe8f005a0f29066d356fbb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: CandyAngel Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:46:37 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Added a comment --- .../comment_4_e6bb8a33608908d02eeb921d039f22b9._comment | 9 +++++++++ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/forum/avoid_rehashing_when_converting_existing_backups_into_new_remotes/comment_4_e6bb8a33608908d02eeb921d039f22b9._comment diff --git a/doc/forum/avoid_rehashing_when_converting_existing_backups_into_new_remotes/comment_4_e6bb8a33608908d02eeb921d039f22b9._comment b/doc/forum/avoid_rehashing_when_converting_existing_backups_into_new_remotes/comment_4_e6bb8a33608908d02eeb921d039f22b9._comment new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..8560857a7a --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/forum/avoid_rehashing_when_converting_existing_backups_into_new_remotes/comment_4_e6bb8a33608908d02eeb921d039f22b9._comment @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="CandyAngel" + subject="comment 4" + date="2015-12-23T12:46:36Z" + content=""" +> This is unlikely to waste enough time to make it worthwhile to develop a hack that only hashes once. + +In my super-heavy use case, the second hashing of the files is *dwarfed* by the 45 minute wait for git to update .git/index, so I would agree with this. +"""]]