# Re: \[PATCH 1/2\] pack-objects: Teach --use-bitmap-index codepath to respect --local, --honor-pack-keep and --incremental

- From: Junio C Hamano \<hidden\>
- Date: 2016-08-08 16:12:02 
- List: git
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/git/2016/08/7687531
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/git/2016/08/7687531/t.md

```text
Kirill Smelkov [ref] writes:

>> > ...
>> > Suggested-by: Junio C Hamano <redacted>
>> > Discussed-with: Jeff King [ref]
>> > ---
>> 
>> I do not think I suggested much of this to deserve credit like this,
>> though, as I certainly haven't thought about the pros-and-cons
>> between adding the same "some object in pack may not want to be in
>> the output" logic to the bitmap side, or punting the bitmap codepath
>> when local/keep are involved.
>
> I understand. Still for me it was you who convinced me to add proper
> support for e.g. --local vs bitmap instead of special-casing it.

OK, in such a case, it probably is more sensible to do it like:

    ...
    with all differences strangely showing we are a bit faster now, but
    probably all being within noise.

    Credit for inspiring this solution and discussing the design of
    the change goes to Junio and Jeff King.

    Signed-off-by: Kirill Smelkov [ref]
    ---
     builtin/pack-objects.c  |  36 ++++++++++++-----
     t/t5310-pack-bitmaps.sh | 103 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
     2 files changed, 130 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

Don't forget your own sign-off ;-)
```