On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 03:27:18PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > So, I'm certainly open to changing it, although I'm not sure that I'm as > worried about exposing the implementation detail as I am about squatting > on Bloom filters within Git in general. I don't think that this > configuration will end up getting used by folks other than server > administrators and for debugging purposes, so those populations are > already likely to be aware of changed-path Bloom filters beforehand. Yeah, the squatting thing is definitely my bigger concern (having been through the "bitmaps" version of the same thing). > > It might even be worth considering whether "changed paths" needs more > > context (or would if we add new features in the future). On a "git > > commit-graph write" command-line it is perfectly clear, but would > > core.commitGraphChangedPaths be worth it? It's definitely more specific, > > but it's also way more ugly. ;) > > Here's a third option what about 'graph.readChangedPaths'. I think that > Stolee and I discussed a new top-level 'graph' section, since we now > have a few commit-graph-related configuration variables in 'core'. Yes, I like that even better. Probably "graph" is sufficiently specific within Git's context, though I guess it _could_ bring to mind "git log --graph". So many overloaded terms. :) > That's a little shorter, and it adds the verb 'read', which is more > descriptive than 'use' (I touch on this in the third patch, where I say > that this configuration variable _doesn't_ affect the '--changed-path' > option when writing). Yeah, saying "read" specifically is much nicer. > > > + prepare_repo_settings(the_repository); > > > + > > > graph = read_commit_graph_one(the_repository, odb); > > > > I wondered why we would need this prepare_repo_settings() now, when it > > should have been needed already to cover core.commitGraph already. I > > strongly suspect the answer is: "test-tool read-graph" never properly > > respected core.commitGraph in the first place. > > Yep. Could probably be broken out into a separate patch (or mentioned as > an aside in this one), but you're right: this helper did not respect > any configuration that 'prepare_repo_settings' picks up. I'd probably just note it in the commit message, but I'd be fine with that or with a separate patch. -Peff
