Re: [PATCH v4 00/17] bloom: changed-path Bloom filters v2 (& sundries)

From: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 23, 2023, 20:22 UTC
Message-ID: <20231023202212.GA5470@szeder.dev>
In-Reply-To: <ZTK4ZKESDVghzSH8@nand.local>

On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 01:27:00PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:

Show 18 quoted lines

> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 04:26:48PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes:
> >
> > > (Rebased onto the tip of 'master', which is 3a06386e31 (The fifteenth
> > > batch, 2023-10-04), at the time of writing).
> >
> > Judging from 17/17 that has a free_commit_graph() call in
> > close_commit_graph(), that was merged in the eighteenth batch,
> > the above is probably untrue.  I'll apply to the current master and
> > see how it goes instead.
> 
> Worse than that, I sent this `--in-reply-to` the wrong thread :-<.
> 
> Sorry about that, and indeed you are right that the correct base for
> this round should be a9ecda2788 (The eighteenth batch, 2023-10-13).
> 
> I'm optimistic that with the amount of careful review that this topic
> has already received, that this round should do the trick.

Unfortunately, I can't share this optimism. This series still lacks tests exercising the interaction of different versions of Bloom filters and split commit graphs, and the one such test that I sent a while ago demonstrates that it's still broken. And it's getting worse: back then I didn't send the related test that merged commit-graph layers containing different Bloom filter versions, because happened to succeed even back then; but, alas, with this series even that test fails.