Re: [PATCH v4 0/8] Repack objects into separate packfiles based on a filter

From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 12, 2023, 00:12 UTC
Message-ID: <CAP8UFD1HhvaAV2=_tYXQOsi57qq6U6Hp1-LEBCaM-9n-mmKHrg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZNQI5vpcoXbkkPWa@nand.local>

On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 11:45 PM Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> I took a look through the range-diff as well as the patches themselves
> again (skimming through the last three, which are much more
> straightforward than the preceding ones).
>
> Everything looks good to me here, and I think that this version is ready
> to get picked up once we're on the other side of 2.42.

Thanks again for your review!

> I left a couple of comments throughout, but none of them merit a reroll
> on their own. I think there are a couple of things we could easily
> ignore (marking parameters as "const", etc.), and a couple of things
> that we should probably take a look at after the dust has settled here.

The version 5 I just sent should fix all the small things that you found in your review.

> We *may* want to fix up the test_must_fail invocation that has the
> environment variable on the left-hand side instead of using
> "test_must_fail env", but I don't know for sure.

This is fixed by squashing Junio's 'SQUASH???' commit in version 5.

> I do think that we should take another look at disabling the bitmap
> machinery when given `--filter`, but I think that, too, can be done in
> another series.

I agree. I plan to do it later when this is merged. I think it would make it easier to use the new --filter feature, but it would require changes in code, tests and documentation, which can be done later.

Thanks, Christian.