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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,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 9FF161F5AF for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 13:38:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232294AbhC3Nho (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Mar 2021 09:37:44 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34100 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232215AbhC3NhM (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Mar 2021 09:37:12 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-xd32.google.com (mail-io1-xd32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d32]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2813AC061762 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 06:37:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd32.google.com with SMTP id n21so16443171ioa.7 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 06:37:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ttaylorr-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=QCleCaLOjaopznQ+DYApEqjF1wD86igCPFYo2eL5n7g=; b=yimp0RSRaa4tYKAbIH5YHXiPTIA3a4buxfT6kdOFBmYehMCs1kcq1KcKoNMRCT0f5z H6xT2DLfdcev7PYUNmhcA/lDBE5BMrqbEaxNN3QkkbEcECB6xsbTBw0m3fRjMPmaWnWd IM/h+dcI1/3ZBYvg8DZ+O/I3bJRNFq2+YJfyAc/rFToD8ucRLBz6wfk5Tgu3q0EXmEHU yeGH+4m5YDU90NZcmuprEBOoye6KAq58fdqNxSqSQo41ma3xGYOQVC061p31T9usjYG5 XrF+K7Tt8kjNHMTYQNYJdUSzxFJEiSD93lMrkRleMZYhsczqYvCqRAm5LDk3Qv3XhY9R /GZQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=QCleCaLOjaopznQ+DYApEqjF1wD86igCPFYo2eL5n7g=; b=sl4C1/BRx9lCmD59+pBqNpdcgYwOx47Z+rZ+sGJ2TuWpW2Iar31dYOhcrTjdnAiEW/ ajPFw2okgGrz4ROcfuhSUkR0zyq6GeUjzHfrpvupyKH/M0JTetUt3kUPdcPAKCTIHntQ eUqXV8H7iqyYGhfUK4w88q87Mk09QIwKX8aGUVg5gCIdvDYxoXWlPwYPd5Zu1YKQo/Tp ajcKQR2pmBFw1cbI0intGSeazifE/B02urW47UcNwyfOjXAxN62xwo4Y8zbKx5vLUrCp 8IaJg/r6NNMxpXmUKGuL67JEjjxoVhhHZSCHxIwx7ZsL4fyntCDuSQAVRWloa+Ow44+C m2vQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531mfvoQ7phZoBlbfi3K7TR4jtBVKlUCLfDVlzzyT95jxhnfSose CjGKA21/eCvLtXcbF5f2eyrLwQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy2wZUzzxTEAqcqsopsHAYXwMRvUfWmED6Hc5Z/zfJ/8VR98qTyHhNLsmT4+9iSaE6Pp2TM0g== X-Received: by 2002:a6b:3118:: with SMTP id j24mr24171980ioa.205.1617111431460; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 06:37:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2605:9480:22e:ff10:7b00:4f79:8763:6261]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x20sm11396277ilc.88.2021.03.30.06.37.10 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 30 Mar 2021 06:37:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 09:37:09 -0400 From: Taylor Blau To: Jeff King Cc: Taylor Blau , git@vger.kernel.org, avarab@gmail.com, dstolee@microsoft.com, gitster@pobox.com, jonathantanmy@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/16] midx: implement a multi-pack reverse index Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 03:15:02AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 05:37:01PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > > (FWIW, I can also see an argument in the other direction along the lines > > of "we may discover something later on that requires us to change the > > way multi-pack .rev files work". I think that such an outcome is fairly > > unlikely, but worth considering anyway). > > That would be my general worry, too, but in this case I am not too > concerned because I know the code has received substantial exercise > already on real-world production servers. So while we may clean up some > cosmetic bits or respond to review as it goes upstream, I'm much less > worried about seeing some brown-paper-bag bug that would be sufficient > to make us want to re-roll these .rev commits. And hopefully the > existing rounds have addressed the cosmetic/review bits. Yes. Another benefit is that it should give us substantial confidence in the correctness not just of this topic, but of the multi-pack bitmaps that are built on top, too. Thanks, Taylor