Re: What's cooking in git.git (Sep 2021, #08; Mon, 27)

[Neeraj Singh <nksingh85@gmail.com>]

Thanks Junio.  I'd be happy to have my change go in first.  I'm hoping
that we'll be able to get a lot of mileage with batch mode in Git For
Windows early on.

Thanks,
Neeraj

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 11:52 PM Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 3:01 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > Neeraj Singh <nksingh85@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > Elijah,
> > >
> > > Here's a branch of your changes based on the amalgamated tmp-objdir code:
> > > https://github.com/neerajsi-msft/git/commits/neerajsi/remerge-diff
> > >
> > > This commit adapts your code to use the amalgamated API:
> > > https://github.com/neerajsi-msft/git/commit/725328fe1d8be8326d2ddef78e164ca21450b100
> >
> > It seems that the discussion petered out at this point.
> >
> > Right now I have a version of ns/remerge-diff before this adjustment
> > in 'seen', and Neeraj's latest version is kept out of 'seen' as they
> > do not play well together without an adjustment like that.
> >
> > What's the good way forward?  I do not deeply care which one goes
> > first, but I have a feeling that the need by remerge-diff that wants
> > to discard temporary objects would involve more work to make it safe
> > than the need by batched fsync where newly created objects will not
> > be discarded but merely moved to the primary store before the end of
> > the operation, so from that point of view, it seems simpler and
> > safer to queue ns/batched-fsync topic first (especially given that
> > it is a no-op until the end-user opts into the experiment), and have
> > a remerge-diff that uses the infrastructure from Neeraj's topic.
> >
> > What's your take on the rebase Neeraj made, Elijah (at the URL
> > above)?
>
> I meant to dig further, but nearly all my git time in the last week
> and a half was attempting to keep up with other patch reviews.  My git
> time is fast disappearing in the near term, and it's not clear how
> much, if any, time I'll have to work on patches (or even continued
> reviewing) before, say, mid-November.  I most likely won't be able to
> do any discussion-prep work in advance of the Git Contributor's
> Summit, and might not even be able to attend anymore.
>
> I had looked over Neeraj's patches and they looked reasonable.  I
> thought there might be some tweaks that I could try out, but at this
> point, just take what he has and keep my topic as expecting an update.
> I'll circle back eventually.
>
> Sorry for the delay.