From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 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,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4DED2055E for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 02:01:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752021AbdJZCBu (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:01:50 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:57479 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751911AbdJZCBt (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:01:49 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53B0499340; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:01:48 -0400 (EDT) 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=3NavJArvssWlf2JV9SPNcAUNp4o=; b=c89J6T 9vByNVkm9SJvHGHVVixiuNLxT16eU+SKmvjsAbBWPGTq1FHvhuafkn5Nasvr+Qks JSlxH4loWyTNy7v3xmTMcJU5Yq6BOynZATsrSpC0Wohmy1BySvhG8M9PEjOG9VyY ffmaOS1IvN/eEZWf1St0CLXF8z6tuvKxwP7/k= 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=pJ+eHh3drg7f4mEY7wnIC+TlPK0uLxh5 GggNYmytJplFiyqfyN0Y9CVIR1GYJI++iqX7+rokYfhlgLCuu1tbTslS6Ea2f06a slRDwYerBwuyhYeoblmxKynPfUWIHo5IJ/t1RtzvwZvCvW7bh1SAZD9EwCJpE7D/ 30nYpiaaDvQ= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B8739933E; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:01:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B270F9933D; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:01:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jonathan Tan Cc: Jeff Hostetler , Git mailing list , Jeff King , Jeff Hostetler Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] WIP Partial clone part 1: object filtering References: <20171024185332.57261-1-git@jeffhostetler.com> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 11:01:46 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Jonathan Tan's message of "Tue, 24 Oct 2017 23:46:18 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 9FCECD3E-B9F1-11E7-A52C-575F0C78B957-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jonathan Tan writes: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> OK, thanks for working well together. So does this (1) build on >> Jonathan's fsck-squelching series, or (2) ignores that and builds >> filtering first, potentially leaving the codebase to a broken state >> where it can create fsck-unclean repository until Jonathan's series >> is rebased on top of this, or (3) something else? [*1*] > > Excluding the partialclone patch (patch 9), I think that the answer is > (2), but I don't think that it leaves the codebase in a broken state. > In particular, none of the code modifies the repo, so it can't create > a fsck-unclean one. OK. It is not dangerous enough to matter until we start using the updated features in repack->rev-list|pack-objects ;-) As I said, I was mostly interested in learning what the big-picture direction was and also seeing you two were more-or-less in agreement. > The above is relevant only if we can exclude the partialclone patch, > but I think that we can and we should, as I wrote in my reply to Jeff > Hostetler [1]. OK. > As for how this patch set (excluding the partialclone patch) interacts > with my fsck series, they are relatively independent, as far as I can > tell. I'll rebase my fsck, gc, and lazy object fetch patches (but not > the fetch and clone parts, which we plan to instead adapt from Jeff > Hostetler's patches, as far as I know) on top of these and resend > those out once discussion on this has settled. OK. Thanks, I think tht is a reasonable way forward. > [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/CAGf8dg+8AR=XfSV92ODAtKTNjBnD1+oVZp9rs4Y4Otz_eZyTfg@mail.gmail.com/ > >> I also saw a patch marked as "this is from Jonathan's earlier work", >> taking the authorship (which to me implies that the changes were >> extensive enough), so I am a bit at loss envisioning how this piece >> fits in the bigger picture together with the other piece. > > The patch you mentioned is the partialclone patch, which I think can > be considered separately from the rest (as I said above). Good, that lets us sidestep Jeff's question about "how should the credits for this change attributed?", too.