On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 20:37, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Martin Ågren <martin.agren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 22:46, Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Not very much has changed since last time, but a range-diff is below > >> nonetheless. The major changes are: > >> > >> - Avoid an overflow when bounds checking in the second and third > >> patches (thanks, Martin, for noticing). > > > > FWIW, the updates to patches 2 and 3 look exactly like what I was > > expecting after the discussion on v1. I have nothing to add. > > Thanks, both. Shall we move the topic down to 'next'? I really only dug into those patches 2 and 3. I read the rest of the patches of v1 and went "that makes sense", but that's about it. I started looking at "pack-bitmap-write: build fewer intermediate bitmaps" and went "this looks really cool -- I should try to understand this". :-) There was SZEDER's comment on that last patch in v2, where future readers of that patch will have to wonder why it does s/256/270/ in a test. I agree with SZEDER that the change should be mentioned in the commit message, even if it's just "unfortunately, we have some magicness here, plus we want to pass both with SHA-1 and SHA-256; turns out 270 hits the problem we want to test for". Martin
