From: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 19:47:36 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] pack-bitmap: save "have" bitmap from walk
Message-ID: <7dadd117-e7f4-4d15-b907-043718022494@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180821190701.GE30764@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On 8/21/2018 3:07 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> When we do a bitmap walk, we save the result, which
> represents (WANTs & ~HAVEs); i.e., every object we care
> about visiting in our walk. However, we throw away the
> haves bitmap, which can sometimes be useful, too. Save it
> and provide an access function so code which has performed a
> walk can query it.

This makes a lot of sense. Based on the amount of time the "Counting 
Objects" blog post [1] spent talking about delta bases, I would have 
assumed this "haves" bitmap was already part of it. But, I can also see 
how it could be dropped if you are focusing on performance for 'git clone'.


> A few notes on the accessor interface:
>
>   - the bitmap code calls these "haves" because it grew out
>     of the want/have negotiation for fetches. But really,
>     these are simply the objects that would be flagged
>     UNINTERESTING in a regular traversal. Let's use that
>     more universal nomenclature for the external module
>     interface. We may want to change the internal naming
>     inside the bitmap code, but that's outside the scope of
>     this patch.

I saw the uninteresting-vs-haves name confusion in the patch below, but 
I agree with your logic here.

Sorry that I'm late to the party, but I was interested in the topic.

Thanks,

-Stolee

[1] https://githubengineering.com/counting-objects/

     "Counting Objects" by Vincent Martí