From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-a5-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-a5-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.148]) (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 2CE822594 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2025 15:25:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.148 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1745940338; cv=none; b=u2HifOwvf0jLR9XGqUB2vDhu37FDP6alIcYTGokq1iOLLqH+zkWhSYPV08Q16LCtlS6E8rokWuWiBmPdYBYOKpqlwKb5ym+hTnStU2OniqUZh+4z1T3pXtAxv7LB3Fp4mbIvV+7WDETm/Q3w02Vm5kiFbJOpEX1nmol/HVg+uOY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1745940338; c=relaxed/simple; bh=e4XsNxoMNRnL6fk156y71LDl6zUi8Xv5XfcCpwB/i9A=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=RZ77n0nYePwWz9FKXuehw++nxtYYEK5xJA90ISdEWFFC2Gmm7UrZfHp2+g9HXqOr9Shn9dTN8fwrVQRxswc/9QxnioxMflC2DBN5u8Xhv+G2VkOly4JpTLWGlrj3yWraT66mDo7numn8WzJJP4ypJuz+WnX2phgQshUZuYEAdMk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=jq4kXZ1z; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=t09RZVhe; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.148 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="jq4kXZ1z"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="t09RZVhe" Received: from phl-compute-10.internal (phl-compute-10.phl.internal [10.202.2.50]) by mailfout.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1289913801C8; Tue, 29 Apr 2025 11:25:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-02 ([10.202.2.161]) by phl-compute-10.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 29 Apr 2025 11:25:34 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1745940334; x=1746026734; bh=E1Gsg3LmuK 4HwB+h/6MEcO1Ym4QdmGYedzb5BNk++T4=; b=jq4kXZ1zGmR1ZreLkMfA/gfSn3 JifzHy2bFRMv6oW1Pac3bSVfMJPWeyYLeAbu9sF06qBv5RuOp7tu7xoZfjjkIjAR tgLYU4kaB1M93/PuQAHr03WszWDz0bkDz435o87hLd7s4i3dioO7pBZkYK177y0M 9HWkVbiQ5C3mJujKqKwCJi8z2W+7vyFDDkI8pneGoshdoC5uB8uS8BxVmWIVUrNn 1T9OMvrdDUoG68U8ajFvPzsWUUzVNROXtYYgxyYCqWVtcqQikqgH03fuWr+7Xe4g 4psLGwfhhZn+u6wGczpq4CyTpaY+mDFOQHatglBdo6HBrHo8R3PBkO09Rk4w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1745940334; x=1746026734; bh=E1Gsg3LmuK4HwB+h/6MEcO1Ym4QdmGYedzb 5BNk++T4=; b=t09RZVhev//mXP0FUUh17yAaB1DcLk3SIR1Vw1B7yRpUSQ1P/Xz WQbekL4qV4F7mJdS9yTNXFBkBfw+gtAsIe/6PMPR0IuAwk0AYk2ZOgpOaTi+mK9D ic/N9NGt5P9LjwTeA2RDDgYn0Aj4lfQTZlMarAk7xD32KOCtfExGKw6oNHf6vDN7 aUMkV3a+sB50vA9ADg74VWmRQAzO0ydcvEHJHmnQyqo3ACjtMezGeba2cA6HiHPx JNXMCTeeqsvV5pU1IoVKkD33jY/vwlVah5VCDLSHJTgpOQS1q+GDE9QjNaw6g4WK ulDyMPJ3Ni3lPUUTXHQOKqYWvhgwklUVNrA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefvddrtddtgddvieegudejucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggv pdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpih gvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttder tdenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcuvecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosg hogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepfeevteetjeehueegffelvdetieevffeu feejleeuffetiefggfeftdfhfeeigeeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrg hrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghr tghpthhtohepgedpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepphhssehpkhhsrd himhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthht ohepkhgrrhhthhhikhdrudekkeesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtsh htvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 29 Apr 2025 11:25:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Karthik Nayak Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/13] bulk-checkin: don't fetch promised objects on write In-Reply-To: (Patrick Steinhardt's message of "Tue, 29 Apr 2025 08:15:46 +0200") References: <20250425-pks-object-store-cleanups-v2-0-63f1695b7700@pks.im> <20250425-pks-object-store-cleanups-v2-12-63f1695b7700@pks.im> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 08:25:31 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Patrick Steinhardt writes: > Yeah, to be honest I wasn't totally sure whether to include these steps > myself as I anticipated that they will lead to discussions that derail > my original goal, which is to clean up the interfaces in the object > subsystem. I decided to go with these where I thought that my train of > thought is reasonable, but given your comments I'll probably just drop > those patches. > > We can still adapt these callsites in the future as needed. It is probably why among our past rewrites and refactors, successful ones started with a rewrite faithful to the original, treating semantic improvements as a set of separate topics on top. I think some semantic-improvement steps like the http walker one make sense, but even for them, others may give us some reasons why it is not a good idea to cause me change my mind. On the other hand, steps I thought whose semantic changes were undesirable may turn out to be benign (they unquestionably will improve the performance of the call path; it was quesitonable to me if they still gave us correct results). So let's give people some time to evaluate. I'd consider these "improved behaviour" changes as "to be discarded by default, unless there are strong supporting arguments why the specific semantic changes are good" material. Thanks.