Re: [RFC PATCH 10/10] pack-objects: improve partial packfile reuse

From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 3, 2019, 06:55 UTC
Message-ID: <CAP8UFD35BAhAJuxivUy=8+XmGXL4snRnsfHJXxgWO+jXfeMrxg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq5zl6d1kv.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 4:06 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

>
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>
> > Hmm, I see the early parts of this graduated to 'next'. I'm not sure
> > everything there is completely correct, though. E.g. I'm not sure of the
> > reasoning in df75281e78 (ewah/bitmap: always allocate 2 more words,
> > 2019-09-13).

Yeah, when I prepared the series I wondered why we allocate 2 more words instead of just 1 more, but I forgot to ask that when sending it.

Show 8 quoted lines

> > I'm sorry for being so slow on giving it a more careful review. I was
> > traveling for work, then playing catch-up, and am now going on vacation.
> > So it might be a little while yet.
>
> Thanks for a status update.  I do not mind moving this topic much
> slower than other topics at all (if somebody is actively working on
> it, I do not even mind reverting the merge and requeuing an updated
> series, but I do not think that is the case here).

I think the series requires at least documenting pack.allowPackReuse which is introduced in d35b73c5e9 (pack-objects: introduce pack.allowPackReuse, 2019-09-13). I was planning to send an additional patch to do that, but if you prefer I can add the documentation to the same commit that introduce the config variable and resend everything.

> It would give me
> much more confidence in the topic if we can collectively promise
> ourselves that we'll give it a good review before we let it graduate
> to 'master'.

Yeah, a review from Peff could be especially insightful as the code comes from GitHub.