From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2025 07:33:14 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] builtin/repack: avoid rewriting up-to-date MIDX
Message-ID: <aTvFOlhtPHgWQC5L@pks.im>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqsedhe78q.fsf@gitster.g>

On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 05:46:13PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> This and Taylor's incremental part 3.2 have a slight conflict in
> that this topic factors away the logic to compute if we need
> recomputing MIDX while the other one tweaks with yet another flag.
> 
> My tentative resolution in 'seen' looks like the attached.  Sanity
> checking is very much appreciated.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> diff --cc midx-write.c
> index ce459b02c3,f2dbacef4c..66c125ccb0
> --- a/midx-write.c
> +++ b/midx-write.c
> @@@ -1014,73 -1131,30 +1131,89 @@@ static void clear_midx_files(struct odb
>   	strbuf_release(&buf);
>   }
>   
>  +static bool midx_needs_update(struct multi_pack_index *midx, struct write_midx_context *ctx)
>  +{
>  +	struct strset packs = STRSET_INIT;
>  +	struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
>  +	bool needed = true;
>  +
>  +	/*
>  +	 * Ignore incremental updates for now. The assumption is that any
>  +	 * incremental update would be either empty (in which case we will bail
>  +	 * out later) or it would actually cover at least one new pack.
>  +	 */
> - 	if (ctx->incremental)
> ++	if (ctx->incremental || ctx->compact)
>  +		goto out;

So this here is essentially the change you had to port over, which looks
about right to me. The comment is becoming somewhat stale due to the
change, but I don't think that's much of an issue for now.

Thanks!

Patrick