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=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE 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 E8D591F90C for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 19:39:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2438480AbgDOTjv (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2020 15:39:51 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:52176 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2438305AbgDOTjs (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2020 15:39:48 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87CE04B435; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 15:39:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=o+b1y/UMM53XGkhA3b31yZ6HuiU=; b=MKuScr fj9OB+L24R5HqIkJH3/lBGqLMJgId9h/ymYRd4FogcgWc6SDlUU7/+jdyjmP+Azk z71wpKyYV77kpFAVGxVVXEfLYdY45A+/9L2BojRy+TqTnaLj2f/6+whVjTGg9lZM TqtakhVLLhpdIFwucg9eaodJJ2d0OrCAbUiN4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=BPnRE4rmliLFx+F1M78tct1g7d2ITRNk 5KoLP7ZyOytK2wF5hGi27sW0x7mW1ML/qm1VInGvrY3WwsrSQgx0sCghM34HhwUq iGBOon1nATA1HgNVJv7q1x/oSWstnUPbfUrGH06DPR1g8GfR9Y9mNtjkUjY3OxAG HtaqbA7V3Yc= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FECE4B434; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 15:39:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 077384B432; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 15:39:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Derrick Stolee Cc: Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, me@ttaylorr.com, jnareb@gmail.com, garimasigit@gmail.com, Derrick Stolee Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] revision: complicated pathspecs disable filters References: <9cc31c289aa785f026eec84452ed68e80505d95e.1586566981.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> <44ce43e2-6cf0-0e48-18eb-f02543d81bf4@gmail.com> <99e0ae2c-6b65-24e4-3d2b-1dff619a5daa@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 12:39:43 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Wed, 15 Apr 2020 12:32:42 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: DB3C4794-7F50-11EA-8070-C28CBED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > As you are, I am on the fence. > > I do not think :(icase) pathspec is something we want to optimize > for, but I still like this new hash function primarily because I > suspect that it will increase the number of paths that you can cram > into the filter without getting their hashes collided (hence getting > false positive), under the assumption that real projects won't try > to store too many pair of paths that are only different in their > case... Sorry, but no, I do not think there is such upside. It may have effects on the actual hash values to downcase paths that are originally camelCased, but reducing the entropy of input paths that way shouldn't have effect on the overall distribution and rate of collision in any meaningful way (otherwise the chosen underlying hash function would be broken). So, sorry for the noise.