On Sat, Sep 05, 2020 at 09:04:50PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > On Sat, Sep 05, 2020 at 02:55:34PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 05, 2020 at 02:38:54PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > > > I don't know. I think my biggest objection is the size: we use the BIDX > > > chunk today to avoid having to write the length-zero Bloom filters; your > > > scheme would force us to write every filter. On the other hand, we could > > > continue to avoid writing length-zero filters, so long as the > > > commit-graph indicates that it knows this optimization. > > > > Thinking about it a little bit more, I'm pretty sure that this isn't as > > easy as it sounds. Say that we: > > > > - continued to encode length-zero Bloom filters as equal adjacent > > entries in the BIDX, but reserve the length-zero filter for commits > > with no changed-paths, _or_ commits whose Bloom filters have not yet > > been computed > > No, use zero-length filters for commits whose Bloom filters have not > yet been computed, and use a one-byte all zero bits Bloom filter for > commits with no modified paths. > > And this is exactly what I proposed earlier. Fair enough, I bet that would work. Junio, let's eject this series while I try to see if SZEDER's idea is workable. > > I don't see a non-convoluted way to split the overloaded length-zero > > case into something that is distinguishable without a format extension. > > See above, no format extension needed. Where? Thanks, Taylor
