Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> OK, thanks for working well together. So does this (1) build on >> Jonathan's fsck-squelching series, or (2) ignores that and builds >> filtering first, potentially leaving the codebase to a broken state >> where it can create fsck-unclean repository until Jonathan's series >> is rebased on top of this, or (3) something else? [*1*] > > Excluding the partialclone patch (patch 9), I think that the answer is > (2), but I don't think that it leaves the codebase in a broken state. > In particular, none of the code modifies the repo, so it can't create > a fsck-unclean one. OK. It is not dangerous enough to matter until we start using the updated features in repack->rev-list|pack-objects ;-) As I said, I was mostly interested in learning what the big-picture direction was and also seeing you two were more-or-less in agreement. > The above is relevant only if we can exclude the partialclone patch, > but I think that we can and we should, as I wrote in my reply to Jeff > Hostetler [1]. OK. > As for how this patch set (excluding the partialclone patch) interacts > with my fsck series, they are relatively independent, as far as I can > tell. I'll rebase my fsck, gc, and lazy object fetch patches (but not > the fetch and clone parts, which we plan to instead adapt from Jeff > Hostetler's patches, as far as I know) on top of these and resend > those out once discussion on this has settled. OK. Thanks, I think tht is a reasonable way forward. > [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/CAGf8dg+8AR=XfSV92ODAtKTNjBnD1+oVZp9rs4Y4Otz_eZyTfg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > >> I also saw a patch marked as "this is from Jonathan's earlier work", >> taking the authorship (which to me implies that the changes were >> extensive enough), so I am a bit at loss envisioning how this piece >> fits in the bigger picture together with the other piece. > > The patch you mentioned is the partialclone patch, which I think can > be considered separately from the rest (as I said above). Good, that lets us sidestep Jeff's question about "how should the credits for this change attributed?", too.
