Re: [PATCH 0/11] jk/loose-object-cache sha1/object_id fixups

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jan 8, 2019, 18:05 UTC
Message-ID: <20190108180522.GA4610@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqy37v59qz.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 09:39:48AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> > I skimmed them; they look good to me.  6 and 8 are particularly
> > satisfying; getting rid of hash copy operations just feels nice. :)
> >
> > Junio only took 1 to 5 into pu; 6, 7 and its sidekick 8, 10 and 11
> > conflict with sb/more-repo-in-api; 9 could go in unmodified.
> 
> I think these later steps are based on something a lot newer than
> the result of applying your updates to the jk/loose-object-cache
> series they fix.  I think I untangled and backported one of the
> earlier commits but then I stopped after 05/11.

Sorry, I applied René's patches on top of master and then built on that, treating it like a new topic. But of course your jk/loose-object-cache is older.

Show 5 quoted lines

> I do not think it is important to keep jk/loose-object-cache and
> these two follow-up topics mergeable to the maintenance track, so
> I'll see if the patches behave better if queued directly on top of
> 3b2f8a02 ("Merge branch 'jk/loose-object-cache'", 2019-01-04), or
> even a yet newer random point on 'master'.

Yeah, they should. I think one of them will need René's patch, which changes the body of quick_has_loose(). I can roll it as a separate topic if that's easier (or just wait a week or so until René's cleanups graduate).

-Peff