Re: ds/multi-pack-index (was Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jul 2018, #02; Wed, 18))

[Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>]

On 7/20/2018 12:09 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>>    What's the doneness of this one?  I vaguely recall that there was
>>>    an objection against the concept as a whole (i.e. there is a way
>>>    with less damage to gain the same object-abbrev performance); has
>>>    it (and if anything else, they) been resolved in satisfactory
>>>    fashion?
>> I believe you're talking about Ævar's patch series [1] on
>> unconditional abbreviation lengths.
> Yes, this is a total tangent, but what happened to that one?  I did
> not queue because I was led to expect v2 to follow soonish [*1*].
>
>> Lookup speeds improve in a multi-pack environment.
> True.  I recall that years ago there was a discussion, but nobody
> came up with patches, to do the consolidated .idx for exactly that
> reason (not the "abbrev" reason).
>
>> That's the best I can do to sell the feature as it stands now (plus
>> the 'fsck' integration that would follow after this series is
>> accepted).
> Heh, 'fsck' intergration is not a 'feature' to sell anything, I
> would think.  Nobody wants to run fsck for the sake of running
> it---it is just having one extra file that must not go corrupt
> _requires_ one to have a way to check its integrity and fsck is the
> logical place to do so X-<.

Yep. I didn't mean 'fsck' is a selling point, but that it is an 
important thing to build for anything that is going in the objects 
directory. I mention it only to say that I'm committed to providing that 
functionality.

> In any case, we've had this for about a week in 'pu' after 4
> iterations, and review comments seem to have quieted down [*2*], so
> let's consider merging it down to 'next'.  I think at least I need
> to "commit --amend" (or something like that) 16/23.

Right. There is a commit message error and some spaces to insert. See 
[2] if you need a reminder. Thanks!

[2] https://public-inbox.org/git/xmqqin5kupu3.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com/

> [Footnotes]
>
> *1* <87a7s4471y.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>
>
> *2* That does not indicate either of these two:
>
>      - nobody is interested in the topic
>      - the topic is now without any flaw
>
>      It only means that keeping it in 'pu' as a dormant topic would
>      not do anybody any good.