On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 08:13:45PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:

On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 06:13:57PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:

quoted

One thing that could make this a lot simpler is if the code was added to
"are we recent" code paths in the first place.

Something like this:

This is quite nice, and I think that it's a good direction to push this
~series~ patch in before queuing. That said, I wasn't sure about...

quoted

@@ -78,7 +144,7 @@ static void add_recent_object(const struct object_id *oid,
 	struct object *obj;
 	enum object_type type;

-	if (mtime <= data->timestamp)
+	if (!obj_is_recent(oid, mtime, data))
 		return;

 	/*

...this hunk. That only kicks in if you have other recent object(s),
since the hooks are consulted as a side-effect of calling your new
`obj_is_recent()` function.

I think in most cases that's fine, but if you had no otherwise-recent
objects around, then this code wouldn't kick in in the first place.

I wonder if it might make more sense to call the hooks directly in
add_unseen_recent_objects_to_traversal().

OK, no, this is fine, but we'd need to make sure that
want_recent_object() also understood the fake recent set here, since
add_recent_loose() and add_recent_packed() both bail early when
want_recent_object() returns 0.

Thanks,
Taylor