Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] midx: apply gitconfig to midx repack

[Son Luong Ngoc <sluongng@gmail.com>]

Hi Junio,

Thanks for the feedbacks

> On May 6, 2020, at 19:03, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

...
> We write this part in imperative mood, as if
> we are giving an order to the codebase to "become like so".  We do
> not say "I do X, I do Y".

This is a great feedback.
I will try to include all of your suggestions and edit the message
before submitting V3.

>> Note:
>> - `repack.packKeptObjects` will be addressed by Derrick Stolee in
>> the following patch
> 
> This definitely does not belong to the commit log message.  It would
> make a helpful note meant for the reviewers if written below the
> three-dash line, though.

Duly noted.

> Do we need to worry about the configuration variables understood by
> the "git pack-objects" command to get in the way, by the way?
> "pack.packsizelimit" may cause "git repack" to produce more than one
> packfile, and if this codepath wants to avoid it (I do not know if
> that is the case), it may have to override it from the command line,
> for example.

I dont think we want to avoid the packsizelimit here.
The point of repacking with midx is to help
end users consolidate multiple packfile in a non-disruptive way.

If you wish to put a constraint (i.e. packsizelimit, packKeptObjects) on this process,
you should be able to.

>> Signed-off-by: Son Luong Ngoc <sluongng@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> midx.c | 10 ++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/midx.c b/midx.c
>> index 9a61d3b37d9..3348f8e569b 100644
>> --- a/midx.c
>> +++ b/midx.c
>> @@ -1369,6 +1369,8 @@ int midx_repack(struct repository *r, const char *object_dir, size_t batch_size,
>> 	struct child_process cmd = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
>> 	struct strbuf base_name = STRBUF_INIT;
>> 	struct multi_pack_index *m = load_multi_pack_index(object_dir, 1);
>> +	int delta_base_offset = 1;
> 
> By default we use delta-base-offset, so if repo_config_get_bool()
> did not see the repack.usedeltabaseoffset configuration defined in
> any configuration file, we still want to see 1 after it returns.
> 
>> +	int use_delta_islands;
> 
> What is the reason why it is safe to leave this uninitialized?  Did
> you mean 
> 
> 	int use_delta_islands = 0;
> 
> here?

I think I totally misread how repo_config_get_bool() supposed to work
Your comment here made me re-read it and things got a lot clearer.

Will set the default value to 0 in next version.

> Thanks.

Much appreciate,
Son Luong.