Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] gitformat-commit-graph: describe version 2 of BDAT
From: Derrick Stolee <hidden>
Date: 2023-06-20 13:23:59
On 6/13/2023 5:58 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jonathan Tan [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
+ in Probabilistic Verification". Version 1 bloom filters have a bug that appears"bloom" -> "Bloom", probably, as the name comes from the name of its inventor (just like we spell "Boolean", not "boolean").
The ultimate recognition comes from when the term named after you
becomes lower-case ("boolean" is sometimes in this category, but
definitely "abelian" is an example).
In this case, you are right that we should capitalize Bloom.
quoted
+ when char is signed and the repository has path names that have characters >= + 0x80; Git supports reading and writing them, but this ability will be removed + in a future version of Git.Makes sense.
I also like how you organized this: "We support version 2. 1 is still around but not for long."
I wonder if we want to mention what the undesired misbehaviour the "bug" causes and what we do to avoid getting affected by the bug here. If we can say something like "When querying for a pathname with a byte with high-bit set, the buggy filter may produce false negative, making the filter unusable, but asking for a pathname without such a byte produces no false negatives (even though we may get false positives). When Git reads version 1 filter data, it refrains from using it for processing paths with high-bit set to avoid triggering the bug", then it would be ideal. Or "When the repository has even a single pathname with high-bit set anywhere in its history, version 1 Bloom can give false negative when querying any paths and becomes unusable. You can use $THIS configuration variable to disable use of Bloom filter data in such a case" would also be fine. The point is to give actionable piece of information to the readers.
This is definitely helpful, but if someone is having issues we would say "try version 2 and see if it still happens" and not over-index on the underlying reason. That's to say, I'm OK with the shorter description of the problem. Feel free to expand if you're interested, though. Thanks, -Stolee