Re: [PATCH v2 00/20] fundamentals of merge-ort implementation

From: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 11, 2020, 17:08 UTC
Message-ID: <75170ee7-525e-31fc-f6bd-6dfac12b00c8@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20201102204344.342633-1-newren@gmail.com>

On 11/2/2020 3:43 PM, Elijah Newren wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> Elijah Newren (20):
>   merge-ort: setup basic internal data structures
>   merge-ort: add some high-level algorithm structure
>   merge-ort: port merge_start() from merge-recursive
>   merge-ort: use histogram diff
>   merge-ort: add an err() function similar to one from merge-recursive
>   merge-ort: implement a very basic collect_merge_info()
>   merge-ort: avoid repeating fill_tree_descriptor() on the same tree
>   merge-ort: compute a few more useful fields for collect_merge_info
>   merge-ort: record stage and auxiliary info for every path
>   merge-ort: avoid recursing into identical trees
>   merge-ort: add a preliminary simple process_entries() implementation
>   merge-ort: have process_entries operate in a defined order

I got this far before my attention to detail really started slipping.

Show 8 quoted lines

>   merge-ort: step 1 of tree writing -- record basenames, modes, and oids
>   merge-ort: step 2 of tree writing -- function to create tree object
>   merge-ort: step 3 of tree writing -- handling subdirectories as we go
>   merge-ort: basic outline for merge_switch_to_result()
>   merge-ort: add implementation of checkout()
>   tree: enable cmp_cache_name_compare() to be used elsewhere
>   merge-ort: add implementation of record_unmerged_index_entries()
>   merge-ort: free data structures in merge_finalize()

I'll try to take another pass on these commits tomorrow.

For the series as a whole I'd love to see at least one test that demonstrates that this code does something, if even only for a very narrow case.

There's a lot of code being moved here, and it would be nice to have even a very simple test case that can check that we didn't leave any important die("not implemented") calls lying around or worse accessing an uninitialized pointer or something.

Thanks, -Stolee