On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 01:27:00PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 04:26:48PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

Taylor Blau [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

(Rebased onto the tip of 'master', which is 3a06386e31 (The fifteenth
batch, 2023-10-04), at the time of writing).

Judging from 17/17 that has a free_commit_graph() call in
close_commit_graph(), that was merged in the eighteenth batch,
the above is probably untrue.  I'll apply to the current master and
see how it goes instead.

Worse than that, I sent this `--in-reply-to` the wrong thread :-<.

Sorry about that, and indeed you are right that the correct base for
this round should be a9ecda2788 (The eighteenth batch, 2023-10-13).

I'm optimistic that with the amount of careful review that this topic
has already received, that this round should do the trick.

Unfortunately, I can't share this optimism.  This series still lacks
tests exercising the interaction of different versions of Bloom
filters and split commit graphs, and the one such test that I sent a
while ago demonstrates that it's still broken.  And it's getting
worse: back then I didn't send the related test that merged
commit-graph layers containing different Bloom filter versions,
because happened to succeed even back then; but, alas, with this
series even that test fails.