Re: jt/path-filter-fix

[Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>]

On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 12:20:25PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 11:10:34AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> * jt/path-filter-fix (2023-08-01) 7 commits
> >>  - commit-graph: new filter ver. that fixes murmur3
> >>  - repo-settings: introduce commitgraph.changedPathsVersion
> >>  - t4216: test changed path filters with high bit paths
> >>  - t/helper/test-read-graph: implement `bloom-filters` mode
> >>  - bloom.h: make `load_bloom_filter_from_graph()` public
> >>  - t/helper/test-read-graph.c: extract `dump_graph_info()`
> >>  - gitformat-commit-graph: describe version 2 of BDAT
> >>
> >>  The Bloom filter used for path limited history traversal was broken
> >>  on systems whose "char" is unsigned; update the implementation and
> >>  bump the format version to 2.
> >>
> >>  Still under discussion.
> >>  cf. <20230801185232.1457172-1-jonathantanmy@google.com>
> >>  source: <cover.1690912539.git.jonathantanmy@google.com>
> >
> > I am happy with the most recent round, but I think that it is probably a
> > little late in the cycle to be merging down such a large change.
> >
> > I wouldn't be opposed if you did so, but it may be worth waiting until
> > we're on the other side of 2.42 so that other reviewers have a chance to
>
> Since I hear some folks (not just Google) base their own edition of
> Git on 'next', it probably is a good idea to merge it to 'next' and
> have their users help find potential issues in it, as I agree that
> the area it touches is important in the correctness department.  Of
> course, it is important enough that the topic may very well want to
> be cooked longer than the usual "for at least one calendar week" in
> 'next', so I tend to agree that in a first few batches after the
> release may be the best time to have it graduate (if it turns out to
> be OK).

Yep, I agree with all of that. Thanks for juggling the merges, as always
:-).

Thanks,
Taylor