From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-a1-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a1-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.152]) (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 9F828B67F for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2024 01:16:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.152 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1734571000; cv=none; b=stGvPtPi9eEcOELnB7TEPP9rxJnKc9sRl35Hx8yScftL3BOfOaNGlIBmgHbUYXwXhFSNqLfxWKaYR6gGzbes8gvUThqOuFa7rtx23kGixrEqrnmL0N3vlvaKVwH1PmGKNgykGnpqlD5yq22Ucfoa22opaIN8aUq092USAnWk0/c= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1734571000; c=relaxed/simple; bh=WtBYcE8MTxvxJW7mVFL9b5JtxT+8K1P0W9uRrthYjec=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=YtGoERykghoYAra1eYccFgl+52htp7s0AYiARKNaL8vocKEGmqd+1HpseloevLJ2DEFxKuSq8g3phpIB2J9rDdsTK46PyehY4xYHudH22LtW/ugxljYI/APst6nb2IgfkEGIy7inxE7LB2yI8yT02L+W04CYF15Ae5Beb/C4d9w= 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=k/84/Y8j; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=vdQovphr; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.152 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="k/84/Y8j"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="vdQovphr" Received: from phl-compute-11.internal (phl-compute-11.phl.internal [10.202.2.51]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A072C11401A4; Wed, 18 Dec 2024 20:16:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-11.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 18 Dec 2024 20:16:37 -0500 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=1734570997; x=1734657397; bh=uQ5UHrfsVb X3xCPxVuOHrIT3A8k/TO9eXyxQloYQzvk=; b=k/84/Y8jLrw37cSiCTfZhAiG6Z ZVQ4bG7CZOJ1kDhIaTnbF4lzwohwN2ESIRBfz3AdOQQIe213oNHpY4rqShi7Z6Jv t4SdeVvos/zPZYyMFLkAHC8Z1sBKvoQHUrzLeibxhYZBGLPp0No31MrLBs/DLQC4 ZEk/SHtoYYZphh48FbtO2T1Cjn/DbHHeibEeY9BolR/P5CXyCaoyrIUEh6Fgq+vD 7NLvdhGQ5lgD0nKHqvMDjJEIxcLlnLGh8tBCVowLqQQEbcP+6kjjhveEtJlXvqRg fkV9WY4X6jKfC7zYL+wapprnMZuM4CScLCo2RWR+6Gme+bEGUznu2/I0GOJw== 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= 1734570997; x=1734657397; bh=uQ5UHrfsVbX3xCPxVuOHrIT3A8k/TO9eXyx QloYQzvk=; b=vdQovphrFVCbl/5tPqx2mx+u11kFCVaCB7Ws+tYDaX2Mq9AVHwh F9KkfbaRBgo48XNOAmTwatmRqnPh4lop1xwRjZykLr0odkmLA4bIIchXiwZhMDEo Td4hR7tPAP+igc72s/er7Bkj298z4XzYaLqBiP1BzIX4A+nxq5jUqbkuVeSqGBf9 vI2H+cV5fXkey2OCWQRKkI3BgT4WQTEM8pHjK8atcsEwgjK+oMqhc+8w2l/7/mX0 vKn0C7+81nJzlSlZKoVOrJobdU6ScO9gTJCUr0QeZGb5RmqJClgyUbW0Nsu6P0Cx BZsACAYNoDW9o8i5ql3q92+Ogi+6Y5Tu1Jw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefuddrleelgdefvdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpuffr tefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnth hsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpefhvfevufgjfhffkfgfgggtsehttdertddtredtnecu hfhrohhmpefluhhnihhoucevucfjrghmrghnohcuoehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrd gtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeefveetteejheeugeffledvteeiveffueefjeel ueffteeigffgfedthfefieegieenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmh epmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhmpdhnsggprhgtphht thhopeeipdhmohguvgepshhmthhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthhopehmvgesthhtrgihlhhorh hrrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdprhgt phhtthhopehpvghffhesphgvfhhfrdhnvghtpdhrtghpthhtohepnhgvfihrvghnsehgmh grihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepphhssehpkhhsrdhimhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihht shhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 18 Dec 2024 20:16:36 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Taylor Blau Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King , Elijah Newren , Patrick Steinhardt Subject: Re: [PATCH] pack-bitmap.c: ensure pack validity for all reuse packs In-Reply-To: (Taylor Blau's message of "Wed, 18 Dec 2024 18:49:24 -0500") References: <7fdbfadc04926efc094633b238a55168c92e3d58.1734117577.git.me@ttaylorr.com> Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 17:16:35 -0800 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 Taylor Blau writes: > IOW, we no longer need to check the validity of the preferred pack in > either case. But in an incremental MIDX bitmaps world, we do need to > keep calling prepare_midx_bitmap_git() along the MIDX's ->base pointer, > if non-NULL. Thanks. >> I wonder what we can do better to make sure the work a contributor has >> already done (in this case, resolve interaction between two topics) is >> not wasted and recreated (possibly incorrectly) by the maintainer. > > I am not sure. During the interim maintainer period, Patrick sent a > couple of rounds of ps/build with a final patch to the effect of > "unbreak everything in seen", which could be dropped. > > But I think an easier thing to do would have been for myself to indicate > that you'd run into a non-trivial conflict here and provide the > resolution proactively. A trick used by recent series from Patrick say things like "this is based on X, with Y and Z merged". This patch could have done the same way. It of course makes two topics entangled and one takes the other hostage, so we need to carefully judge if such a dependency is worth it. So far, I found Patrick's judgement on the choice of dependencies quite solid (essentially, Y and Z must be cooked enough at least for 'next', and can reasonably be expected to graduate while we iterate on the new topic that is being built). Thanks.