Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Restrict when prefetcing occurs

From: Garima Singh <garimasigit@gmail.com>
To: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>,
	Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
	Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Garima Singh <garima.singh@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Restrict when prefetcing occurs
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 07:57:36 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7c877d3b-e6fb-c9b0-f403-09133270017d@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7de2f54b-8704-a0e1-12aa-0ca9d3d70f6f@gmail.com>

On 4/6/2020 7:44 AM, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> On 4/2/2020 4:28 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> I notice that a439b4ef (diff: skip batch object download when
>> possible, 2020-03-30) by Garima seems to aim for something similar.
>>
>> I'll for now keep both topics with conflict resolution, but it may
>> make sense for you two to compare notes.
> 
> I pointed this out in [1]. I think the right thing to do is for
> Garima's/my patch to rely on Jonathan's change. The commit needs
> to be modified, not simply ejected, but it could be separated from
> the rest of Garima's series. It is only a performance fix for
> normal clones, but is critical for partial clones.
> 
> Garima: do you think it would be easy to remove that patch if/when
> you do a v4 and I can make a new series based on yours and Jonathan's
> with the rename setting?
> 

Sure. I was thinking about rebasing my series on top of Jonathan's 
and adjusting as necessary, but it might be easier to just remove it 
and then have a new series based on mine and Jonathan's, like you
suggested. 

There hasn't been any feedback since I sent out v3. I will just re-roll
v4 without this patch, to make sure pu no longer requires conflict
resolution around the Bloom filter series. 

Cheers! 
Garima Singh