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, 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 D3B5B1F5AF for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 07:15:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230323AbhC3HPM (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Mar 2021 03:15:12 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:36748 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231246AbhC3HPD (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Mar 2021 03:15:03 -0400 Received: (qmail 18103 invoked by uid 109); 30 Mar 2021 07:15:03 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 07:15:03 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 22040 invoked by uid 111); 30 Mar 2021 07:15:04 -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 Mar 2021 03:15:04 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 03:15:02 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Taylor Blau Cc: 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 Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 05:37:01PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > > The biggest question is what we want to happen next. As you note, the > > concept of a midx .rev file is useless until we have the matching > > .bitmap file. So we _could_ let this sit in next while the dependent > > bitmap topic is reviewed, and then merge them down together. But I'm > > inclined to treat this as an independent topic that can get merged to > > master on its own, since the early cleanups are valuable on their own, > > and the .rev parts at the end, even if dead, won't hurt anything. > > That matches what I was hoping for. I think the clean-ups are worth it > on their own, but I also think it's a good idea to take the whole > series, since it means there's one less long-running branch in flight > while we review the MIDX bitmaps topic. > > (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. -Peff