From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [217.216.95.84]) (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 7583224A07C for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:10:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.216.95.84 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777450233; cv=none; b=Ys1qiXd84/p9JVs/9baS0RhOKn2gBFVtvibdknEXi2R0khO5YLBDRPiazwJuyPztGnBBW7uKPPPBnjDTQLHqyYOLJm0t03l6DtCdYa7XkCbZ/bOPsBOld6I4GOXnYtDG4dmAHY9lFzVRevw4NmeXlKdbr0fbaQRLhyY6FoQ7K3w= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777450233; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XFJ1aKi1jgl9k4Pj8uVu7SobOC2+U8FNkT6KKcsjcm4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=X9zKTEECAs0S3g99FeBMbUud0WUHl1L7lJbVk9KJ1zl92vBdvTRKlzfXDkuwVJme4Ge9Q6Ln7RxcK8i7iCezjpJB0S40mpFvVdJqVT/a5UijAtGPPPH8tmc/chLzJ+GdYINyeBXtfHmSJfelShnYA853JputlAOlz4aMPQQWaYI= 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=hwivdIAl; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.216.95.84 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="hwivdIAl" Received: (qmail 485892 invoked by uid 106); 29 Apr 2026 08:10:31 -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=XFJ1aKi1jgl9k4Pj8uVu7SobOC2+U8FNkT6KKcsjcm4=; b=hwivdIAlgzZ3tRNiVeKvmomLa7gGMSYswZvwgSPk356H8yG2uOXh2DRPo2CgDkbk4DurjdzWSLoBF3ifLLltu0xwD9asZJ5NMgFuieJpJvxtci1XdoW2NHbwig9tQY4q6xoeoYreCNZDL7g1tJ+dBpJwHD4YkK5TpTh8RfCtnbfMF3A91zFLFaTuhfcvWuy05hfGIbsev82TaUNB80rjLVmiDDTRBxZaJpHYdat0jJo8ahFEAaUPLMu8qpUsZ8QXhQ5bFqqoWbDdoeCNaanSBpWyjYjRu7kUH7+hW10d5bPYv+KJ5219nYZP7HKPAXowenQq+Rky2RovFW41y/ZHsA== Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:10:31 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 1099812 invoked by uid 111); 29 Apr 2026 08:10:31 -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, 29 Apr 2026 04:10:31 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2026 04:10:30 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Taylor Blau Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , Elijah Newren , Patrick Steinhardt Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/16] repack: incremental MIDX/bitmap-based repacking Message-ID: <20260429081030.GA1268740@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: 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 Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 04:37:08PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > The main changes since last time are described in [1], which I sent to > the list last week just before the 2.54 release was tagged. For > convenience, a copy of the main changes are below: > > - Use a strset instead of a string_list for keeping track of the MIDX > layers to retain when calling `either clear_midx_files_ext()` or > `clear_incremental_midx_files_ext()`. > > - A new patch to rewrite the logic for determining which MIDX layers > comprise the new chain via keep_hashes to build the array in order. > The subsequent patch converts that into a strvec, which no longer > requires direct manipulation. > > - The new "--checksum-only" option has been renamed to > "--no-write-chain-file", and various small implementation tweaks > (e.g., relying on `is_lock_file_locked()` to determine whether we > should update the chain file as opposed to reading the flags). Thanks, I think that addresses my review from the previous round. I looked over the final few patches. Aside from a small nit about a possible leak, I didn't notice anything obviously wrong. There's enough new and tricky concepts that I wouldn't guarantee there's not a subtle corner case lurking, but I don't think me staring at it any longer is going to yield any further insight. -Peff