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: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 1D2611F8C6 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 18:08:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1346742AbhIASJB (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Sep 2021 14:09:01 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:54811 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1346679AbhIASJA (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Sep 2021 14:09:00 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60165CEE45; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 14:08:02 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=U9XhOq1CxmFgsuNm1ZHfD5urVebcfOvq4Y73d4 TpWNI=; b=NDjtfdJFid0HMgiOZIDEnuz61OqvhD0ZB8PYtvTYCL/sq1i601WnCT GvfYt/Q7n/W/p6V8MnQPr4+KP2xz/8/dkjvi9CdmyaiRVstcj+g8WnQncdpGS/un UqdC+6Y2yvvPyA/jhGRpthC7ALC8QiHUNIlmtgGQQORcRRURYyZN8= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE2FACEE44; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 14:08:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.116.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2A7D7CEE43; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 14:08:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Taylor Blau Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, peff@peff.net, dstolee@microsoft.com, jonathantanmy@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/27] multi-pack reachability bitmaps References: Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2021 11:07:59 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Taylor Blau's message of "Tue, 31 Aug 2021 16:51:33 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 8B795C7E-0B4F-11EC-BA9E-ECFD1DBA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Taylor Blau writes: > Here is another version of the multi-pack reachability bitmaps series. It is > virtually unchanged since last time. > > The changes that did occur is that I integrated Johannes' patch from [1] to fix > cleaning up MIDX .rev and .bitmap files when using `--object-dir`. That inspired > a lengthy discussion [2] about `--object-dir`, alternates, object-format and > running the MIDX builtin outside of a Git repository. > > This series resolves that discussion by leaving everything as-is, and only > changing the following: > > - `git multi-pack-index` will not run when outside of a Git > repository. > > - The `--object-dir` argument will only recognize object directories > belonging to an alternate of the current repository. > > - Using `--object-dir` to point to a repository which uses a > different hash than the repository in the current working directory > will continue to not work (as was the case before this series). > > And because this incorporates [1], we will also not accidentally clean `.rev` > files from the wrong object directory. > > I think that this version is ready-to-go, and that we can turn our attention to > squashing some of these cross-alternate buglets, and integrating MIDX bitmaps > with `git repack`. Thanks. > +@@ Documentation/git-multi-pack-index.txt: OPTIONS > + Use given directory for the location of Git objects. We check > + `/packs/multi-pack-index` for the current MIDX file, and > + `/packs` for the pack-files to index. > +++ > ++`` must be an alternate of the current repository. After replacing the previous round with this round and running "git diff @{1}" on the branch, I noticed this documentation update, but did't find any new code that tries to ensure that the requirement is met. It's a bit curious omission. I think it is OK to allow running this command on and then add it as a new alternate (iow, the being an alternate is not a strict requirement for correct computation and writing of the midx, even though it may be a requirement for correct use of the resulting midx), so perhaps that is where the lack of validation comes from? THanks.