From: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
To: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Aug 2025, #05; Mon, 11)
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2025 10:41:46 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aJtSqgJ7w02Ox74w@nand.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aJs5Gee3ZVCJX8dk@pks.im>
On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 02:52:41PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> > * ps/commit-graph-wo-globals (2025-08-07) 10 commits
> > - commit-graph: stop passing in redundant repository
> > - commit-graph: stop using `the_repository`
> > - commit-graph: stop using `the_hash_algo`
> > - commit-graph: refactor `parse_commit_graph()` to take a repository
> > - commit-graph: store the hash algorithm instead of its length
> > - commit-graph: stop using `the_hash_algo` via macros
> > - commit-graph: fix sign comparison warnings
> > - commit-graph: fix type for some write options
> > - commit-graph: stop using signed integers to count Bloom filters
> > - trace2: introduce function to trace unsigned integers
> >
> > Remove dependency on the_repository and other globals from the
> > commit-graph code, and other changes unrelated to de-globaling.
> >
> > Will merge to 'next'?
> > source: <20250807-b4-pks-commit-graph-wo-the-repository-v3-0-82edef830a1e@pks.im>
>
> I don't intend to reroll this series for now. As long as you are happy
> with the signedness-related patches I think this should be ready.
I am still not sold on the first four of these patches, and I share
Junio's concern[1] that the "int -> unsigned int" changes are not well
justified.
As a practical concern, the "max_commits" and "size_mult" values should
never come even close to INT_MAX, so I am not sure that the wider range
is giving us all that much. I am a little more convinced by the Bloom
filter changes, but since they are purely for debugging and also
exceedingly unlikely to exceed the signed INT_MAX, I do not think they
are absolutely necessary.
That said, I don't feel strongly enough about the lack of justification
here to hold up this series[^2], so I am fine with it moving forward if
both you and Junio are happy with it as-is. But I am left wanting a
stronger justification for the first half of the changes.
Thanks,
Taylor
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqpld6kb4t.fsf@gitster.g
[^2]: I don't want to waste the list's time debating a signed-ness
conversion when we have much bigger fish to fry, but I also do not want
to deviate too far from our usual standards, either.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-12 14:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-12 8:29 What's cooking in git.git (Aug 2025, #05; Mon, 11) Junio C Hamano
2025-08-12 12:52 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2025-08-12 14:41 ` Taylor Blau [this message]
2025-08-13 7:06 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2025-08-13 13:25 ` Taylor Blau
2025-08-13 14:55 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-08-15 5:28 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2025-08-12 14:46 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-08-12 15:24 ` Jean-Noël AVILA
2025-08-12 16:02 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aJtSqgJ7w02Ox74w@nand.local \
--to=me@ttaylorr.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=ps@pks.im \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).