From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 772891F5AE for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:33:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728114AbgF3Tdl (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jun 2020 15:33:41 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:46494 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727883AbgF3Tdl (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jun 2020 15:33:41 -0400 Received: (qmail 14428 invoked by uid 109); 30 Jun 2020 19:33:41 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:33:41 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 26159 invoked by uid 111); 30 Jun 2020 19:33:41 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 15:33:41 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 15:33:40 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Taylor Blau Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, dstolee@microsoft.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] commit-graph: respect 'core.useBloomFilters' Message-ID: <20200630193340.GA1889576@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <4cfa086e503e19763a9d581fcb6a2ef818776dfc.1593536481.git.me@ttaylorr.com> <20200630191834.GC1888406@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20200630192718.GA31522@syl.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200630192718.GA31522@syl.lan> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 03:27:18PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > So, I'm certainly open to changing it, although I'm not sure that I'm as > worried about exposing the implementation detail as I am about squatting > on Bloom filters within Git in general. I don't think that this > configuration will end up getting used by folks other than server > administrators and for debugging purposes, so those populations are > already likely to be aware of changed-path Bloom filters beforehand. Yeah, the squatting thing is definitely my bigger concern (having been through the "bitmaps" version of the same thing). > > It might even be worth considering whether "changed paths" needs more > > context (or would if we add new features in the future). On a "git > > commit-graph write" command-line it is perfectly clear, but would > > core.commitGraphChangedPaths be worth it? It's definitely more specific, > > but it's also way more ugly. ;) > > Here's a third option what about 'graph.readChangedPaths'. I think that > Stolee and I discussed a new top-level 'graph' section, since we now > have a few commit-graph-related configuration variables in 'core'. Yes, I like that even better. Probably "graph" is sufficiently specific within Git's context, though I guess it _could_ bring to mind "git log --graph". So many overloaded terms. :) > That's a little shorter, and it adds the verb 'read', which is more > descriptive than 'use' (I touch on this in the third patch, where I say > that this configuration variable _doesn't_ affect the '--changed-path' > option when writing). Yeah, saying "read" specifically is much nicer. > > > + prepare_repo_settings(the_repository); > > > + > > > graph = read_commit_graph_one(the_repository, odb); > > > > I wondered why we would need this prepare_repo_settings() now, when it > > should have been needed already to cover core.commitGraph already. I > > strongly suspect the answer is: "test-tool read-graph" never properly > > respected core.commitGraph in the first place. > > Yep. Could probably be broken out into a separate patch (or mentioned as > an aside in this one), but you're right: this helper did not respect > any configuration that 'prepare_repo_settings' picks up. I'd probably just note it in the commit message, but I'd be fine with that or with a separate patch. -Peff