Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] sparse-index: improve clear_skip_worktree_from_present_files()
- From
Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jun 28, 2024, 01:57 UTC
- Message-ID
- <a1060279-aa30-4e01-8681-a6819bd6bfc8@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CABPp-BFLGrPmUq-rhz7K-G5b__U2jeq8SPdfFDrSa6QkjPMnWg@mail.gmail.com>
On 6/27/24 8:59 PM, Elijah Newren wrote:
Show 31 quoted lines
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 2:46 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: >> >> "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Updates in v2 >>> ============= >>> >>> Thanks to Elijah for a thorough review, leading to valuable improvements. >>> >>> * I was mistaken that the sparse index was required for this logic to >>> happen. This has changed several descriptions across the commit messages. >>> * The final lstat() in path_found() was not needed, so is removed in v2. >>> This saves even more time and lstat() calls, updating the stats. >>> * Elijah created a particularly nasty example for testing, which I include >>> in my final patch. He gets a "Helped-by" credit for this. >>> * Several comments, variables, and other improvements based on Elijah's >>> recommendations. >>> >>> Thanks, Stolee >> >> Thanks, both. This round was a pleasant read. >> >> Let's mark it for 'next' soonish. > > Yeah, this version looks pretty good. There was a possible further > improvement you suggested, but I think that wouldn't need to hold up > this series. > > However, there is one paragraph from the commit message of 1/5 that > I'd like to see stricken first (or rewritten). Once that's done, I > think this series is ready for next.
I agree about the removal of that paragraph, but also there is a "largest" to "longest" replacement in a few comments that makes sense to change.
I can send a v3 with these changes.
Thanks, -Stolee