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-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FSL_HELO_FAKE, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD36320248 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 16:35:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726446AbfDIQfn (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Apr 2019 12:35:43 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-f194.google.com ([209.85.210.194]:44487 "EHLO mail-pf1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726372AbfDIQfm (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Apr 2019 12:35:42 -0400 Received: by mail-pf1-f194.google.com with SMTP id y13so10014790pfm.11 for ; Tue, 09 Apr 2019 09:35:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=5dfeR/r1Kp5Y043nMFJ3bEqUtLmbXxvFBjSkcgTVxgw=; b=h8++TkCyaHLEhPg45+Dpc+VM1a4yvtt7C6UDgAZPBa/pWsBKiEFjlRUFDgFJISYFiR cWHYtrWpAcSu6WGP1Ar7vuaw19IMK8ugW2+0l211C3GpiK9TrlrAa2KQE8tme+/aLuk0 szhniQURuZL4JyHLumNRc5UpxApuiFaKWaydQ4R+v2vWDbU2iL7cMFUBJ2H5k4WyVIw2 L9p0dTX8lGAC/dI7pykZEMiwyGlIeQ7WZ4h9vMk4sT8fz5JEA9T4ZAo/66gCX1WMFSTA IDh/fNoIAg+V+avNk28Z4Q2VXnuU2IjbczhnSonO2KK2zfwFs77ysfBDTprpucXvzWLP jxaw== 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 :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=5dfeR/r1Kp5Y043nMFJ3bEqUtLmbXxvFBjSkcgTVxgw=; b=LHoJz9twuH0g4Fyacq7QVTp0KvLIDDs+kcb2U2IFuWPOLF4lgWHbsdyWFbpdae2vLb QTui8a9Z73grHjvMBjmJefoNat1dKa61gSucyrX7Iq/tAvEsitCLtrDWujiqGkdBpJfz 7sErjs023VmDsTjHHRUpLy57f2YAyDT+hV/KRGxmrMs9umB+VctHt5fOQ7JaRM4XQxgA UMZ7tMzdEd5zJKA6onZVs8CYrmHuCSmKGjKhnvcHEgn6db1KeRRIlD5w5H8asHbwl766 jAqxskOp3LC0ktbnFSD6/PdXLzNVbeJbOyRjSJj5bjEq8Vy+fUytV/doCfthpWGXKp7E 8DGA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWgmkfOLXCwPi3P+jxhosXfvpjjzbxvu/vxzZjrc5/9clxcnjuO edikl0Ob9edKf2R5K4+ZYvasnA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwg8YZnpa8FYt/mY7Wrot98QRK3JiF896FWVjGJ7Ue5f2TztjA3aGiiVqK0LwWZwsTUSM6GRA== X-Received: by 2002:a63:450f:: with SMTP id s15mr35100478pga.157.1554827741748; Tue, 09 Apr 2019 09:35:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2620:0:100e:913:5bb:3076:546:99b0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s16sm46654222pgo.69.2019.04.09.09.35.40 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 09 Apr 2019 09:35:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 09:35:35 -0700 From: Josh Steadmon To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Jeff King , git@vger.kernel.org, jonathantanmy@google.com, jrnieder@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] rev-list: exclude promisor objects at walk time Message-ID: <20190409163535.GL60888@google.com> Mail-Followup-To: Josh Steadmon , Junio C Hamano , Jeff King , git@vger.kernel.org, jonathantanmy@google.com, jrnieder@gmail.com References: <6de682d5e48186970644569586fc6613763d5caa.1554312374.git.steadmon@google.com> <9856e7fc74f51b60ae162cbed3f5c0cf8c603222.1554757275.git.steadmon@google.com> <20190409151559.GB12627@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 2019.04.10 00:43, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:14:41AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > >> I've dealt with the stray double-sign-off locally, but is there > >> anything else planned for v4 or later? Is this performance-only > >> change, or does it have an externally observable behaviour change > >> that we can easily add to our test suite? > > > > I am OK if we do not include it, but even if this is "just" a > > performance-only change, we can always add to our perf regression suite. > > Hmph, that does not say much about a possible change in behaviour in > corner cases you guys were discuussing near the beginning of the > thread when an object can be reached from both a non-promisor and a > promisor object, does it? > > Shouldn't we at least tweak the log message to record that we were > aware of the possibility even though we couldn't readily come up > with a case where this optimization breaks things? I suspect that > it would help the next person who needs to deal with a possible > regression coming from this change to understand the problem better > and hopefully faster. > I'll update the log message and send a v4 in a few minutes.