Re: [PATCH 00/13] WIP Partial clone part 1: object filtering

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 30, 2017, 22:27 UTC
Message-ID: <20171030222726.g26nryjxktyj27sd@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGf8dg+cK3WpEqosgkbdcrDzrMXJxVYHiBZda6UM7k8Ggq=eBw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Jonathan Tan wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> As for how this patch set (excluding the partialclone patch) interacts
> with my fsck series, they are relatively independent, as far as I can
> tell. I'll rebase my fsck, gc, and lazy object fetch patches (but not
> the fetch and clone parts, which we plan to instead adapt from Jeff
> Hostetler's patches, as far as I know) on top of these and resend
> those out once discussion on this has settled.

Selfishly, I'll make a request here. The only part of the series that overlaps is the max-blob-bytes part, right? Would you mind re-sending the remainder of the series so it can go through the "next" -> "master" -> etc process in the usual way?

My selfishness comes in because this would reduce the set of patches I have to apply locally to just the max-blob-bytes part. If I understood correctly, the rest of the series was something everyone agreed about, so there's no reason not to pursue including it in "next".

I'd have the same request for this object filtering series, but I think it's already happening: the patches in this thread so far do not allow omitting some blobs from the local object store, so they should be able to go through the "next" -> "master" -> etc process as well without having to wait for the fsck patches.

Thanks, Jonathan