Re: [PATCH v4 02/13] pack-revindex: prepare for incremental MIDX bitmaps

> > I understand why we need to account for the objects in the base to
> > offset our total size.
> >
> > Similar to Patrick's comments on v3, I wondered about why we couldn't
> > just modify bitmap_num_objects() here, and why some callers would be
> > left with the other.
> >
> > I guess sometimes we still need to consider a single layer. We can't
> > quite just access m->num_objects there, because we still need the midx
> > vs pack abstraction layer. I just thought there'd be more discussion
> > here, but it looks the same as v3.
>
> Right; some callers care about the number of objects in *their* layer,
> like computing the size of some bitmap extensions, bounds-checking
> pseudo-merge commit lookups, or generating positions for objects in the
> extended index.
>
> I'm happy to include that discussion somewhere in the commit message or
> as a comment nearby bitmap_non_extended_bits(), but I'm not sure which
> is better. If you have thoughts, LMK.