Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2025, #03)

> Aaron Plattner <aplattner@nvidia.com> writes:
> 
>> On 12/12/25 2:26 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> * ap/packfile-promisor-object-optim (2025-12-08) 2 commits
>>>    - packfile: skip hash checks in add_promisor_object()
>>>    - object: apply skip_hash and discard_tree optimizations to unknown blobs too
>>>
>>>    The code path that enumerates promisor objects have been optimized
>>>    to skip pointlessly parsing blob objects.
>>>
>>>    Comments?
>>>    source: <20251209014900.402637-1-aplattner@nvidia.com>
>> Jeff King said v2 of the patch looked good to him but recommended
>> splitting it into two changes. I don't know if he wanted to review v3 or
>> if he was okay with it based on his comments on v2. The only differences
>> in v3 are the commit count and descriptions.
> 
> v3 did not have links back to previous iterations, and
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/?q=s%3A%22improve+--exclude-promisor-objects+performance%22
> 
> does not even show v1 or v2 (understandable if the topic was
> retitled, which is not a bad thing, but makes it harder to find the
> previous discussions in a case like this).  So as far as whoever
> wrote the entry in the "What's cooking" report you quoted was
> concerned, what [*] showed
> 
>   * https://lore.kernel.org/git/20251209014900.402637-1-aplattner@nvidia.com/
> 
> was everything known about the topic, which unfortunately had no
> supporting comments.
> 
> Is this
> 
>    https://lore.kernel.org/git/20251206002014.2066644-1-aplattner@nvidia.com/
> 
> which I found in
> 
>    https://lore.kernel.org/git/?q=f%3Aaplattner%40nvidia.com
> 
> the v2 discussion?  We are lucky that you are not as prolific as
> some contributors, for whom an author-name search would have found
> way too many messages ;-)

> I can see that the end result of applying the v3 patches match what
> was in v2, and v3 separates along the lines Peff suggested in his
> 
>    https://lore.kernel.org/git/20251208202812.GC216526@coredump.intra.peff.net/
> 
> so that's an endorsement enough, I guess ;-).
> 
> Let's mark the topic for 'next', then.  Thanks.