On 07/24, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> Here are the topics that have been cooking. Commits prefixed with > >> '-' are only in 'pu' (proposed updates) while commits prefixed with > >> '+' are in 'next'. The ones marked with '.' do not appear in any of > >> the integration branches, but I am still holding onto them. > > > > What do you think about my fixes to protocol v2 tag following [1]? There > > was some discussion about correctness vs the drop in performance, but it > > seems to me that there is some consensus that the drop in performance is > > OK. > > > > [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/cover.1528234587.git.jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > Thanks for reminding. I think I was waiting for Brandon or somebody > else to say something after [2] as the final confirmation before > queuing it, and then the thread was forgotten ;-) > > Will pick it up; it seems to have some interaction with Brandon's > 6d1700d5 ("fetch: refactor to make function args narrower", > 2018-06-27), and I think the correct resolution is to move your > removal of "&& !rs->nr" to do_fetch() function where that commit > moved to. > > Thanks. > > [2] https://public-inbox.org/git/xmqqd0vwcfkr.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Yeah I still don't like it from a performance perspective, but given people rely on this functionality I've been convinced its necessary for correctness until we make other changes. -- Brandon Williams
