Neeraj Singh [off-list ref] 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)?
Thanks.
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 3:01 PM Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Neeraj Singh [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
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.
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 [off-list ref] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 3:01 PM Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Neeraj Singh [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
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.