From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CC49C433E0 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 17:08:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18E45206C3 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 17:08:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="tc7RP8fH" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726373AbgFBRIo (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2020 13:08:44 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:58999 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725969AbgFBRIn (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2020 13:08:43 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 021DACB427; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 13:08:42 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=ucKISUK/nM+o SZupE2KH+y9Gk7Q=; b=tc7RP8fHfIw2I+I0cd9yedY1hQVYqi4dNIi3AgvcMslD dztEgUdfaiUlet+ZpcfKxbuz+XI89NlzdZR2heFiupkCSHdb9gxTASQo7Y/D3VDz hb5eoHnNkA0Lf6WNjQC5kMnS/bm1WgguWugaTQ6HngKMSPbV9QrSPmK1noY54Fo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Qc3zPY f+EVFJzI2MQDGz/dBSpN5m0Sm3L0bnXZgx1hMLwvNF9e5ZhcnMcDyF04mjcit/xl Iazso3f+cj9L/Cg6gdDoNDFg72CNvnJST2Q/v/E4Cg8cG2OmCiK2kbcRvDEfvouW VV9dc4/caYu7ovZXuQy+GDiQJQ04wRDDV+PTg= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED388CB426; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 13:08:41 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.196.173.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2E188CB425; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 13:08:39 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Taylor Blau Cc: SZEDER =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= , git@vger.kernel.org, Garima Singh , Derrick Stolee , Jakub Narebski , Jeff King Subject: Re: [PoC PATCH 00/34] An alternative modified path Bloom filters implementation References: <20200529085038.26008-1-szeder.dev@gmail.com> <20200601232504.GA42750@syl.local> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:08:37 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20200601232504.GA42750@syl.local> (Taylor Blau's message of "Mon, 1 Jun 2020 17:25:04 -0600") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B3FEE826-A4F3-11EA-80F2-B0405B776F7B-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Taylor Blau writes: > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 10:50:04AM +0200, SZEDER G=C3=A1bor wrote: >> Sigh... but better late than never, right? > > Yes, indeed. I think that there is a balance here: I'm thrilled that yo= u > are choosing to spend your time working on and improving the > changed-path Bloom filter implementation. > > Of course, it couldn't have hurt to have these ideas earlier when the > list was more focused on reviewing Garima's original patches. But, > nothing is set in stone, and it seems like there are some re-usable > ideas and clean-ups below. Yes, I had the same impression as you did, unlike some folks who sounded as if they felt offended seeing a comment that sabotages existing work. It could have been presented in a more useful ways (i.e. instead of risking to appear suggesting total replacement, which I do not think was the intention, massaged to build on top of what is already there as improvements), though. > I think you're right to draw the "laying the ground work" line here. > Could these first fourteen patches be applied cleanly to master? They > all look mostly like improvements to me, especially the second patch. Again, I concur. Thanks.