From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-a4-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a4-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.155]) (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 65DB336D9EB for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2026 21:48:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.155 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774302505; cv=none; b=kKfHc8PS5R8y3IbAh0S8sfxt4GLrgBTfTH9hY3JVzGEMYoO9wjszxdO0DSa8czBbE0INOWIMuBxxdkgkO6wm29rep2e2ZWmITFywcHF1W0N4IkHYr6rTdHfW9s3iQ1H3pIyRKnhAuSu3l7vTKOqR/rQ2uPlI8NhCqXKnUOB0BZ4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774302505; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xxtYBHx6LSZlAhcJQmPRo+unbVstZe7nemrkQjZ+rsA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=fHE8jCmfmV6ObVVYXoQCi3omjtSsAw0HMCVds48i3uIhusmv5mXa4vpmqJbpwIdTNp07Bzcwl2mmI4bcr2h469XNjZQUNSo7qqgV8tS2StMGAZqtKvCgN+XpD1aX+fsDOBIX5a5vUBTWAVxUSDWXWDwxUFDRzdU/dI2lJ4GEmLY= 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=V7EQgyQ7; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=1T/tBTgG; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.155 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="V7EQgyQ7"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="1T/tBTgG" Received: from phl-compute-02.internal (phl-compute-02.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4B9514001A1; Mon, 23 Mar 2026 17:48:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-02.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 23 Mar 2026 17:48:23 -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=fm3; t=1774302503; x=1774388903; bh=CWlcOu33rv NtCxQSWt7TnDbud+g4t041gy7LwSS/onY=; b=V7EQgyQ7wU/F8kEeN60e8qZZPP o1aLSx+k0HrlRl9xppC7Kbz7z6Wyg1nbgHqBkycMUt5AJEJmm4KGKJxZUWp1SN/q clUWt59ehwfT8otEWmOB2MgXz8Shbiuw4JTcBBnT+a/1Tl3499Ln8oXUHpTCmkfZ zD7t+bSqX0TKam6tQg+8Pz5utyiNlVi8D4UKHbLWteR+t0lc9V6yGJ4H4MfyQGGY kOVJoYBZbmfjWGnE8nH5V7JawaVllHt7lJ10IPaWiTl93jpXczUCV5UwMPnm2ka0 TLUSRKt4F88S6je+rkAWqbTgHJWD7+zBiZ6jn5nYFnAQrsLs2aRRMA3K3Vrg== 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=fm1; t= 1774302503; x=1774388903; bh=CWlcOu33rvNtCxQSWt7TnDbud+g4t041gy7 LwSS/onY=; b=1T/tBTgGDRpP28AAm8HEqSsq5nQMhpXADbTAoojFZ6LJA7NFU9c 6YBNt2CwmZ3VKabDJpdnT3kAGFcovh6oJIC1tnyKKD+HcGz2bSnnLJXm1fgMI7EI o7OIIfS9Jq+H/MTc9lwge6CYLYONw0cemowS6w2rv3r7aaqHhyH7ULqsP0yWqw9f y8R1QbEBz/Wy23LNyUAQnSRVKBp+oP4boBrZ5ofGZZyFIHbrJoBG4bZojk6XRMvj Q5gp4BciZK9GoM4x6CWArXjEVOsUltOTVOo8muTnmeMgQc7/wDKHbGPznPlHlJzF cWg5LjIaM8oYKBFMz6IQD89K30OSohBEI/A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefgedrtddtgdefudelkeefucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujf gurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttdertdenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcu vecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepfeevteetjeehueegffelvdetieevffeufeejleeuffetiefggfeftdfhfeei geeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepgh hithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepjedpmhhouggvpehs mhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtoheplhhorhgvnhiiohdrphgvghhorhgrrhhivddttddvse hgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhr ghdprhgtphhtthhopehnvgifrhgvnhesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehpsh esphhkshdrihhmpdhrtghpthhtohepmhgvsehtthgrhihlohhrrhdrtghomhdprhgtphht thhopehsuhhnshhhihhnvgesshhunhhshhhinhgvtghordgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepgh hithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 23 Mar 2026 17:48:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: LorenzoPegorari Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Elijah Newren , Patrick Steinhardt , Taylor Blau , Eric Sunshine Subject: Re: [GSoC PATCH v2 3/4] repack-promisor: preserve content of promisor files after repack In-Reply-To: <3dab969a3942532f49f6f9cdcddb5fb2be11e232.1774205661.git.lorenzo.pegorari2002@gmail.com> (LorenzoPegorari's message of "Sun, 22 Mar 2026 20:18:34 +0100") References: <3dab969a3942532f49f6f9cdcddb5fb2be11e232.1774205661.git.lorenzo.pegorari2002@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2026 14:48:21 -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 LorenzoPegorari writes: > @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ static void finish_repacking_promisor_objects(struct repository *repo, > const char *packtmp) > { > struct strbuf line = STRBUF_INIT; > + int is_first_promisor = 1; > FILE *out; > ... > + /* > + * Fetch-pack sometimes generates non-empty .promisor files > + * containing the ref names and associated hashes at the point of > + * generation of the corresponding packfile. These pieces of info > + * are only used for debugging reasons. In order to preserve > + * these, let's copy the contents of all .promisor files in the > + * first promisor file created. > + */ > + if (is_first_promisor) { > + copy_all_promisor_files(repo, promisor_name); > + is_first_promisor = 0; > + } > + Here the underlying assumption seems to be that whichever one of the two potential callers of this function, repack_promisor_objects() and pack_geometry_repack_promisors(), would handle all the existing packs with corresponding .promisor file so it is safe to coalesce all the debugging comments from all the existing .promisor files into one? Is it really true, though? Especially with geometry repacking enabled, wouldn't a regular repack coalesce only the smallish ones into a single pack while leaving an already largeish ones intact, or something? Thanks.