On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 09:31:50PM -0500, Taylor Blau wrote: > > 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". > > Thanks for reviewing it, and noticing a couple of problems in the > earlier patches, too. If folks are happy with the replacement that I > sent [1], then I am too :-). > > I don't think that the "big" patch generated a ton of review on the > list, but maybe that's OK. Peff, Stolee, and I all reviewed that patch > extensively when deploying it at GitHub (where it has been running since > late Summer). Hrm. I thought you were going to integrate the extra checks I suggested for load_bitmap_entries_v1(). Which is looks like you did in patch 17. After that, the s/256/270/ hack should not be necessary anymore (if it is, then we should keep fixing more spots). -Peff
