From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [104.130.231.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35B4731B126 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2025 11:06:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=104.130.231.41 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760526417; cv=none; b=tnLX/LJig/MNH/wEXrDMCHPp4ORhN+W7KTfdnL2wOCevMkhauHeHtoXyRXkSf2XmrhhMSdiP3o9lfIdPXtIV+qob687oC7tJ2WdLBbfkaNerJSSf/bK0rMAoasMX1vr1SWcCQy3mwYhtPodZkdI50Gt5oicBmqNo9+OJxHG95fw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760526417; c=relaxed/simple; bh=0DfUEOxnLLW6uYRVjzgFBxgYMKMHSe0QXWyS+8pj+0s=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=RBm7V0Vs0LehfGP8uwF4u+awamzUZhKCHNheYgEsxCzDtJ71eMyIiwQSYlrD1RkXG9CqlFdL8EeoY0A4L/ItS9ojkjPEVomLOBRS3VC1etXzMECP4RP/CXACkZyJefFZ5VemNcp87D8igYhtcuNA7+diXayD+G57wXof+Uooo0Q= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b=PZmnsnH0; arc=none smtp.client-ip=104.130.231.41 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b="PZmnsnH0" Received: (qmail 226900 invoked by uid 109); 15 Oct 2025 11:06:54 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=peff.net; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=20240930; bh=0DfUEOxnLLW6uYRVjzgFBxgYMKMHSe0QXWyS+8pj+0s=; b=PZmnsnH002KxpBvBvNgHdM7ffUSyniTUaBICNadzVz5Zqs3LFs4XY+KtNeLQRdd7ughy8gsZ/2SHN6Upsa6oKaDq8xBP5QUvAo1IltXS+n3eIi2yugtIFGSVx7eKGLOULUWr/hi4ABF+Tj7vphS+hKxgRYzER1u9QsVSu9qGWAg7LiknmiTsJpDXGApScMFTihnpL0cVXDnKOJl5c2aeNVJ+6HWRCznqkj9SNj9eBZ8uvZv5fNcK+5Z9ljUeSE3FjIwilRVPpyY06pQ4cZ27S39OMGWoVyp+J+NJAve77YMiT//ZgTXZMk/YBgPCkCBg3wAl5XAOwTk6MDhay90LAw== Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Oct 2025 11:06:54 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 363589 invoked by uid 111); 15 Oct 2025 11:06:53 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 15 Oct 2025 07:06:53 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 07:06:53 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Taylor Blau Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , Elijah Newren , Patrick Steinhardt , Justin Tobler Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/49] repack: prepare for incremental MIDX-based repacking Message-ID: <20251015110653.GG2250228@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20251010062913.GJ1965904@coredump.intra.peff.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 07:15:54PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > > I've read up through patch 37. My eyes were starting to glaze over at > > that point, and it looked like the patches were starting to get more > > interesting, so I've saved the rest for another session. > > Thanks for the review thus far! OK, I've finished reading through. The remainder was actually less complicated than I thought it might be. I left a few comments, but there's nothing really important. It sounds like you're doing a re-roll for minor fixes anyway, so you can take or leave my ponderings as you see fit. > Yeah, I think we could probably go on for quite a bit longer polishing > the naming, interfaces, etc. I tried to strike a balance in this series > to change as little as possible while still ending up with a > halfway-decent looking repack.h ;-). > > As you noted, the repack code is extremely fragile/brittle. That is a > big part of why I both (a) took such an incremental approach as in this > series and (b) tried to avoid making too many changes as I moved code > around. > > I think that (b) especially leaves us with an opportunity to clean these > interfaces up after this series has landed, and I intend on doing so. My > hope is that this series gives us a solid foundation to make those > changes on, as opposed to further hacking up builtin/repack.c ;-). OK, that all sounds good to me. I think even if you never circle back to clean up further, the end result here is a net improvement. -Peff