Re: [PATCH] pack-objects: disable pack reuse for object-selection options

Jeff King writes: > On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 11:48:17AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> > I guess what I was asking was: do you still think it was unclear, or do >> > you think you were just being dense? >> > >> > I don't feel like I gave any information in the follow-on

Re: [PATCH] pack-objects: disable pack reuse for object-selection options

On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 10:54:12PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > Contents are the same. I decided to leave the "; do" as it > matches the rest of the script. If we're going to fix it, we > should do them all. Like this, perhaps. I didn't go on a crusade against "; do" in the other scripts, but

Re: [PATCH] pack-objects: disable pack reuse for object-selection options

On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 11:48:17AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I guess what I was asking was: do you still think it was unclear, or do > > you think you were just being dense? > > > > I don't feel like I gave any information in the follow-on explanation > > that wasn't in the commit message,

Re: [PATCH] pack-objects: disable pack reuse for object-selection options

Jeff King writes: > On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 11:14:18AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Jeff King writes: >> >> >> Ah, OK, and now I understand why you called this a "bug" (which is >> >> older and do not need to be addressed as part of 2.13) in the >> >>

Re: [PATCH] pack-objects: disable pack reuse for object-selection options

On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 11:14:18AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > >> Ah, OK, and now I understand why you called this a "bug" (which is > >> older and do not need to be addressed as part of 2.13) in the > >> original message. The new tests check requests

Re: [PATCH] pack-objects: disable pack reuse for object-selection options

Jeff King writes: >> Ah, OK, and now I understand why you called this a "bug" (which is >> older and do not need to be addressed as part of 2.13) in the >> original message. The new tests check requests that ought to >> produce an empty packfile as the result actually do, but

Re: [PATCH] pack-objects: disable pack reuse for object-selection options

On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 09:44:50AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 01:56:27PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > >> Surely, even if we need to exclude some objects from an existing > >> packfile due to these selection options, we

Re: [PATCH] pack-objects: disable pack reuse for object-selection options

Jeff King writes: > On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 01:56:27PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Surely, even if we need to exclude some objects from an existing >> packfile due to these selection options, we should be able to reuse >> the non-excluded part, no? The end result may

Re: [PATCH] pack-objects: disable pack reuse for object-selection options

On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 01:56:27PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > If certain options like --honor-pack-keep, --local, or > > --incremental are used with pack-objects, then we need to > > feed each potential object to want_object_in_pack() to see > > if it

Re: [PATCH] pack-objects: disable pack reuse for object-selection options

Jeff King writes: > If certain options like --honor-pack-keep, --local, or > --incremental are used with pack-objects, then we need to > feed each potential object to want_object_in_pack() to see > if it should be filtered out. This is totally contrary to > the purpose of the

[PATCH] pack-objects: disable pack reuse for object-selection options

If certain options like --honor-pack-keep, --local, or --incremental are used with pack-objects, then we need to feed each potential object to want_object_in_pack() to see if it should be filtered out. This is totally contrary to the purpose of the pack-reuse optimization, which tries hard to