From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Avoid rewriting "packed-refs" unnecessarily
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 03:34:14 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171101073414.rwi426whpinv226l@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1509181545.git.mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 11:16:00AM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> This reroll make some logically small changes to v1 [1] that are
> textually very big:
>
> * Invert the sense of `is_packed_transaction_noop()` and rename it to
> `is_packed_transaction_needed()`. This makes the logic easier to
> follow and document.
>
> * Add a big comment to that function, describing the cases when it
> returns false positives and explaining why that isn't a problem.
>
> * In the commit message for patch 02, gives a lot more information
> about the regression that it is fixing. Thanks to Eric for the
> suggestion.
>
> These patches are also available as branch
> `avoid-rewriting-packed-refs` on my GitHub fork [2]. They now use
> `mh/packed-ref-transactions` as the base, since that is where Junio
> chose to apply v1.
This all makes sense to me. I agree that the "is_needed" logic-flip in
v2 makes it a little easier to think about.
Like Junio, I was thrown off at first by the HAVE_OLD check. Especially
since we would not ever set that flag for the transaction we care about
here. But I think the crux of it is that the packed_ref store code
could in theory operate independently of the loose ref code, where we
feed it more exotic inputs. And what you've written here is
future-proofing against the more general case, even though it would not
be strictly necessary.
-Peff
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-01 7:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-28 9:16 [PATCH v2 0/2] Avoid rewriting "packed-refs" unnecessarily Michael Haggerty
2017-10-28 9:16 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] t1409: check that `packed-refs` is not rewritten unnecessarily Michael Haggerty
2017-10-28 9:16 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] files-backend: don't rewrite the `packed-refs` file unnecessarily Michael Haggerty
2017-10-30 4:52 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-11-01 7:34 ` Jeff King [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171101073414.rwi426whpinv226l@sigill.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=mhagger@alum.mit.edu \
--cc=sunshine@sunshineco.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).