Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> This is all to say: having a maximum size is good. 512 is big enough >> to cover _most_ commits, but not so big that we may store _really_ big >> filters. > > Makes sense. 512 is good enough to hardcode initially, but I couldn't > tell from briefly skimming the patches if it was possible to make this > size dynamic per-repo when the graph/filter is written. > > I.e. we might later add some discovery step where we look at N number of > commits at random, until we're satisfied that we've come up with some > average/median number of total (recursive) tree entries & how many tend > to be changed per-commit. > > I.e. I can imagine repositories (with some automated changes) where we > have 10k files and tend to change 1k per commit, or ones with 10k files > where we tend to change just 1-10 per commit, which would mean a > larger/smaller filter would be needed / would do. I was more interested to find out what the advice our docs should give to the end users to tune the value once such a knob is invented, and what you gave in the above paragraphs may lead us to a nice auto-tuning heuristics.
