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_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 679641F4B4 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 21:35:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1343702AbhDFVfm (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Apr 2021 17:35:42 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:54132 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S242075AbhDFVfk (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Apr 2021 17:35:40 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACD91BA232; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 17:35:30 -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=cN7orWLOPNPd6Til3MQzM13igKk=; b=YQOVOk 3Kun8hDcBPYsW/Gm9E4NhKKcdPTPBWdOBryFR0/IAtj4NKP4RxgnKpUIonHsUxDX sJSx4vf5sSCzVZcImNJBCNA2p6cQAJuGIJY98LBXLJOs/1ZTzzMX0peXQ/dLaLnw fBLk7TWtxVZd2pdsBf/Pxy0JuKECQ9j9uIxV8= 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=bnYOt42gY3fk8aYvvkZAnupOdbP63U26 plb4OyeuPJ7j5jtYPzjEygL5b9PtJ1VuxwCqmZBtadzeW1xD4mrYn3IEtmvJQS2V S5GSEAo2hm6j4+P1J+30SRLLQoaJINrxcfeDOcDFklqRoQ8eM2EVJ//APbCPtMxy LWS3b9JE7+I= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A390ABA231; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 17:35:30 -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 3398EBA230; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 17:35:30 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Derrick Stolee Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Elijah Newren Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2021, #01; Mon, 5) References: <6000ac2f-5d6d-09a2-c44d-4090e3d4c804@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 14:35:29 -0700 In-Reply-To: <6000ac2f-5d6d-09a2-c44d-4090e3d4c804@gmail.com> (Derrick Stolee's message of "Tue, 6 Apr 2021 08:57:22 -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: 028991CA-9720-11EB-9F19-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Derrick Stolee writes: > On 4/5/2021 9:08 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:> * ds/clarify-hashwrite (2021-03-26) 1 commit >> (merged to 'next' on 2021-03-30 at 701f5c0696) >> + csum-file: make hashwrite() more readable >> >> The hashwrite() API always resulted in a call to write(2), even >> when writing a small amount of bytes that would still fit in the >> internal buffer held by the hashfile struct. It has been updated >> to delay the writing until the buffer is filled or the hashfile >> concluded for performance. > > Sorry for not noticing earlier, but this branch description is > based on my erroneous understanding of the change in v1. The > commit now only rearranges and comments the method to be more > clear that it is correctly buffering the data. Perhaps this > could be a substitute? > > The hashwrite() API uses a buffering mechanism to avoid calling > write(2) too frequently. This logic has been refactored to be > easier to understand. Thanks, yes I did recall we replaced this topic with an updated version that concentrates on readability. The proposed text looks good. >> * ds/sparse-index (2021-03-30) 21 commits >> ... >> (this branch is used by ds/sparse-index-protections.) >> >> Both in-core and on-disk index has been updated to optionally omit >> individual entries and replace them with the tree object that >> corresponds to the directory that contains them when the "cone" >> mode of sparse checkout is in use. > > I believe this one has been stable for a little while. Do you > think it could be a candidate for 'next' soon? Alternatively, > you could wait and merge ds/sparse-index and > ds/sparse-index-protections at the same time. I just know that > the second series is causing some merge contention with other > topics. I was planning to give this another scan before marking it as "Merge to 'next'", hopefully before the end of this week. Thanks.