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: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,LIST_MIRROR_RECEIVED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8ACC1F670 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 16:33:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S242814AbiBWQdc (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Feb 2022 11:33:32 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:44200 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S237219AbiBWQda (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Feb 2022 11:33:30 -0500 Received: from mail-il1-x12e.google.com (mail-il1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12e]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C016A4F47B for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 08:33:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-il1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id d3so15748919ilr.10 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 08:33:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ttaylorr-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=JXgYFoEAmGCbxg3qvA6KAm1lnPF+AczZLPmMzlzVHLE=; b=ZC+csl09UVPOfad5p2c4vr8ZpdduPlW1w+imjNlmHp0JKg+EbK/KXCpRzSspEWMfyl Ckv6qYgRRNEJ2W4gH7wDpHlAbbsZdMWRbeoYft9+Y0MhTTrFhsVlLSFNj72rEIkchc/9 AD5ZVduBXJlJy7q+4ZuKkhOoElfsKJl69zjoTUloqnhZRBsge5Fzcbex+r6T/8WN6Pq2 3ZY5sDZGUHuhlzKQi5cax3DfiQiW0XwKWA044dklPyK3QDBR99+Ab2OS8VbZZJCDZbxM GuJcZhGeJv5HT3WCD0p2Lc49DvXdd0o0JPGF6VBvU7TDeeMklaRAOoXVapLM+wjbP3Lw 7emQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=JXgYFoEAmGCbxg3qvA6KAm1lnPF+AczZLPmMzlzVHLE=; b=KTaxnb6O1PleDX+w8zMYuLkaAq9UVv1tXl6245iyxppZufOg/nOSm1t/WeA018nXa8 GmbHSBNtDhnFZEh73AOLoim6DCfPinzilr5/oJZDi6wU5z+LtnMP8EEDfr3TZ34h3lfG CAun33sC9GXhuBILEb3uLuedW0iZjJpzYF9c5+9OZj7/ieofvXkKDLr1G4tnsuoaIuA9 IutFuJKNhymeXtoIXAuuMAlvCFzrN95x7C6h/y+nDtWZJr172vHGyVgt7OYCC6wv8471 AfXobFZFNWB0R+4KiW1seGg05hilLqeFI+UQfK/JgRLmAMQWQAiCZj6hJGCJklYQnGTn ajCA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532NgzXF47or8HpWPyBFglCuIKgaEMYEVIirR6ue/UrrnqZBGgl3 p5chbhbMBX7hm8UHN5Jr0ELU2Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzq/Bn8WnnTfdfnVyYbC68oLzI5/x/O3DEQDImd2YDPmnCLQTQEtuS9r1GQtJX81AFA+KPhiQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:190c:b0:2c2:6851:bce3 with SMTP id w12-20020a056e02190c00b002c26851bce3mr441254ilu.28.1645633982148; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 08:33:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (104-178-186-189.lightspeed.milwwi.sbcglobal.net. [104.178.186.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c21sm69091ioh.35.2022.02.23.08.33.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 23 Feb 2022 08:33:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 11:33:00 -0500 From: Taylor Blau To: Matt Cooper via GitGitGadget Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com, me@ttaylorr.com, derrickstolee@github.com, Matt Cooper Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Specify the actual pack size limit which is breached 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 Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 04:03:11PM +0000, Matt Cooper via GitGitGadget wrote: > Matt Cooper (2): > index-pack: clarify the breached limit > t5302: confirm that large packs mention limit > > builtin/index-pack.c | 8 ++++++-- > t/t5302-pack-index.sh | 8 ++++++++ > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) I took a look and reviewed this series internally. The patches here match what I looked at within GitHub, so these look good to me also. For what it's worth, I wouldn't mind to see these two patches squashed together, since it may be easier for future readers to see the new code and test together in the same patch. But I don't feel strongly about it, so (with or without that suggestion) I'd be happy to see this get picked up. Thanks, Matt! Thanks, Taylor