Re: What's cooking in git.git (Nov 2024, #07; Wed, 20)

Taylor Blau [off-list ref] writes:

On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 05:49:34PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

* tb/incremental-midx-part-2 (2024-11-20) 15 commits
 - midx: implement writing incremental MIDX bitmaps
 - pack-bitmap.c: use `ewah_or_iterator` for type bitmap iterators
 - pack-bitmap.c: keep track of each layer's type bitmaps
 - ewah: implement `struct ewah_or_iterator`
 - pack-bitmap.c: apply pseudo-merge commits with incremental MIDXs
 - pack-bitmap.c: compute disk-usage with incremental MIDXs
 - pack-bitmap.c: teach `rev-list --test-bitmap` about incremental MIDXs
 - pack-bitmap.c: support bitmap pack-reuse with incremental MIDXs
 - pack-bitmap.c: teach `show_objects_for_type()` about incremental MIDXs
 - pack-bitmap.c: teach `bitmap_for_commit()` about incremental MIDXs
 - pack-bitmap.c: open and store incremental bitmap layers
 - pack-revindex: prepare for incremental MIDX bitmaps
 - Documentation: describe incremental MIDX bitmaps
 - Merge branch 'tb/pseudo-merge-bitmap-fixes' into tb/incremental-midx-part-2
 - Merge branch 'tb/incremental-midx-part-1' into tb/incremental-midx-part-2

 Incrementally updating multi-pack index files.

 Needs review.
 source: [ref]

Sorry for not making clearer that I had changed the base to current
'master' for this topic, so these two merges should no longer be
necessary.

Yeah, I know (see my other message on the topic). I just didn't see
a reason to rebase and keeping the same base is slighly easier to
compare the two iterations, with and without range-diff.

One topic I did not see is [1], which appeared not to be picked up in
this or the last cycle. That topic has been reviewed and should be in
good shape. I think the thread died down after agreeing on some
potentially interesting future improvements we could make, but I don't
think there were any outstanding issues with the current patches.
...
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/cover.1730833506.git.me@ttaylorr.com/ (local)