Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 7/7/2020 1:57 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> * ds/commit-graph-bloom-updates (2020-07-01) 10 commits >> (merged to 'next' on 2020-07-06 at 177e6b362e) >> + commit-graph: check all leading directories in changed path Bloom filters >> + revision: empty pathspecs should not use Bloom filters >> + revision.c: fix whitespace >> + commit-graph: check chunk sizes after writing >> + commit-graph: simplify chunk writes into loop >> + commit-graph: unify the signatures of all write_graph_chunk_*() functions >> + commit-graph: persist existence of changed-paths >> + bloom: fix logic in get_bloom_filter() >> + commit-graph: change test to die on parse, not load >> + commit-graph: place bloom_settings in context >> (this branch uses sg/commit-graph-cleanups.) >> >> Updates to the changed-paths bloom filter. >> >> Will merge to 'master'. >> >> * sg/commit-graph-cleanups (2020-06-08) 10 commits >> + commit-graph: simplify write_commit_graph_file() #2 >> + commit-graph: simplify write_commit_graph_file() #1 >> + commit-graph: simplify parse_commit_graph() #2 >> + commit-graph: simplify parse_commit_graph() #1 >> + commit-graph: clean up #includes >> + diff.h: drop diff_tree_oid() & friends' return value >> + commit-slab: add a function to deep free entries on the slab >> + commit-graph-format.txt: all multi-byte numbers are in network byte order >> + commit-graph: fix parsing the Chunk Lookup table >> + tree-walk.c: don't match submodule entries for 'submod/anything' >> (this branch is used by ds/commit-graph-bloom-updates.) >> >> The changed-path Bloom filter is improved using ideas from an >> independent implementation. >> >> Under review. >> cf. <20200627155610.GN2898@xxxxxxxxxx> >> cf. <20200627163335.GO2898@xxxxxxxxxx> >> cf. <20200627155348.GM2898@xxxxxxxxxx> > > I see these are both in 'next' (thanks!). > > Perhaps the "Under review" status for sg/commit-graph-cleanups > should be modified to match ds/commit-graph-bloom-updates? Oops, I am not sure what happened here. There I thought were issues pointed out at least on the latter series but was I hallucinating? For now, as -rc0 is so close, I'm tempted to mark both of them to be cooked in 'next' during the rc period. Thanks.
