Re: What's cooking in git.git (Nov 2024, #07; Wed, 20)

[Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>]

On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 05:49:34PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> * tb/incremental-midx-part-2 (2024-11-20) 15 commits
>  - midx: implement writing incremental MIDX bitmaps
>  - pack-bitmap.c: use `ewah_or_iterator` for type bitmap iterators
>  - pack-bitmap.c: keep track of each layer's type bitmaps
>  - ewah: implement `struct ewah_or_iterator`
>  - pack-bitmap.c: apply pseudo-merge commits with incremental MIDXs
>  - pack-bitmap.c: compute disk-usage with incremental MIDXs
>  - pack-bitmap.c: teach `rev-list --test-bitmap` about incremental MIDXs
>  - pack-bitmap.c: support bitmap pack-reuse with incremental MIDXs
>  - pack-bitmap.c: teach `show_objects_for_type()` about incremental MIDXs
>  - pack-bitmap.c: teach `bitmap_for_commit()` about incremental MIDXs
>  - pack-bitmap.c: open and store incremental bitmap layers
>  - pack-revindex: prepare for incremental MIDX bitmaps
>  - Documentation: describe incremental MIDX bitmaps
>  - Merge branch 'tb/pseudo-merge-bitmap-fixes' into tb/incremental-midx-part-2
>  - Merge branch 'tb/incremental-midx-part-1' into tb/incremental-midx-part-2
>
>  Incrementally updating multi-pack index files.
>
>  Needs review.
>  source: <cover.1732054032.git.me@ttaylorr.com>

Sorry for not making clearer that I had changed the base to current
'master' for this topic, so these two merges should no longer be
necessary.

It at least seems to build and pass 'make test' just fine even when
applied on top of its old base (477ce5ccd6 (The fourth batch,
2024-08-14)). Sorry again.

> * tb/multi-pack-reuse-dupfix (2024-11-15) 2 commits
>   (merged to 'next' on 2024-11-16 at 32792297e5)
>  + pack-objects: only perform verbatim reuse on the preferred pack
>  + t5332-multi-pack-reuse.sh: demonstrate duplicate packing failure
>
>  Object reuse code based on multi-pack-index sent an unwanted copy
>  of object.
>
>  Will merge to 'master'.
>  source: <cover.1731591708.git.me@ttaylorr.com>

Thanks.

One topic I did not see is [1], which appeared not to be picked up in
this or the last cycle. That topic has been reviewed and should be in
good shape. I think the thread died down after agreeing on some
potentially interesting future improvements we could make, but I don't
think there were any outstanding issues with the current patches.

Thanks,
Taylor

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/cover.1730833506.git.me@ttaylorr.com/