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=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, 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 A2B0D1F9FD for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 18:20:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234788AbhBQSTh (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Feb 2021 13:19:37 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:36030 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233681AbhBQSTh (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Feb 2021 13:19:37 -0500 Received: (qmail 19384 invoked by uid 109); 17 Feb 2021 18:18:56 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 18:18:56 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 6840 invoked by uid 111); 17 Feb 2021 18:18:55 -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; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 13:18:55 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 13:18:55 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Taylor Blau Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, dstolee@microsoft.com, gitster@pobox.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] repack: support repacking into a geometric sequence 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, Feb 16, 2021 at 07:01:13PM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 10:58:45PM -0500, Taylor Blau wrote: > > > The details of the new approach can be found in the third patch, but the gist is > > as follows: > > [...] > > I think this turned out very nice (and less complicated than I feared it > might). I've read up through patch 5. I think the overall approach is > good, but I had various small-to-medium comments. > > I'll try to pick up reviewing the rest tomorrow, though it may make > sense to resolve the earlier comments first. OK, I finished reading the rest and left a few more comments. The short of it is that I really like the new direction, but I think there are enough small comments to merit a re-roll, which I hope would probably be the final. -Peff