On Mon, Aug 27 2018, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Mon, Aug 27 2018, René Scharfe wrote: > >> Am 27.08.2018 um 09:37 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason: >>> >>> On Sat, Aug 25 2018, René Scharfe wrote: >>> [...] >>> Now, I like yours much better. I'm just saying that currently the >>> patch/commit message combo is confusing about *what* it's >>> doing. I.e. let's not mix up the correction of docs that were always >>> wrong with a non-change in the user facing implementation, and some >>> internal optimization all in one patch. >> >> Now you have me confused. Unsorted lists were always accepted, but the >> documentation asked for a sorted one anyway, probably to avoid sorting >> it with every use. Switching the underlying data structure makes that a >> moot point -- sortedness is no longer a concern at all -- not in the >> code, and not for users. >> >> Inviting users to run the array implementation with unsorted lists is >> not incorrect, but it also doesn't help anyone. We could clarify that >> sorted lists are preferred or recommended instead of required. I don't >> see value in perfecting the documentation of a quirk just before >> removing it, though. > > I think it's easier to clarify step-by-step with code, so here's an my > version of a v3 which implements what I was suggesting, but then of > course while doing it I found other stuff to fix, changes since your > v2: Sorry for breaking threading, forgot In-Reply-To, which should be https://public-inbox.org/git/c7cbc289-d86e-09dc-bdb3-b5496cf0b7ce@xxxxxx/ > René Scharfe (2): > fsck: use strbuf_getline() to read skiplist file > > None to the code. > > I changed some docs I add in earlier patches to now describe behavior > in a past tense (and the s/sorted // change is earlier), and to change > the docs to say that sorting the list on-disk is now pointless for > optimization purposes, but did something in the past. > > fsck: use oidset for skiplist > > There is now a test for the bug you were fixing in your 1/2. > > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (5): > fsck tests: setup of bogus commit object > > Fixing some test redundancies while I'm at it. > > fsck tests: add a test for no skipList input > > We didn't test the most basic skipList invocation, fixed while I was > at it... > > fsck: document and test sorted skipList input > > Test that sorted & unsorted skipList input, and document that in the > past we said this was required, but it never was, but what (ever so > slight) optimization this gives us. > > fsck: document and test commented & empty line skipList input > > We don't support comments or empty lines. Add tests for this not > working, and explicitly document that it doesn't work (I for one tried > it). > > fsck: support comments & empty lines in skipList > > Ignoring comments and empty lines is very useful for a file format > that might be human-edited (I maintain one such file). Support that, > and document & test for it. > > Documentation/config.txt | 22 ++++++++++---- > fsck.c | 48 ++++++++++------------------- > fsck.h | 8 +++-- > t/t5504-fetch-receive-strict.sh | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > 4 files changed, 86 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
