On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 05:37:01PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > > The biggest question is what we want to happen next. As you note, the > > concept of a midx .rev file is useless until we have the matching > > .bitmap file. So we _could_ let this sit in next while the dependent > > bitmap topic is reviewed, and then merge them down together. But I'm > > inclined to treat this as an independent topic that can get merged to > > master on its own, since the early cleanups are valuable on their own, > > and the .rev parts at the end, even if dead, won't hurt anything. > > That matches what I was hoping for. I think the clean-ups are worth it > on their own, but I also think it's a good idea to take the whole > series, since it means there's one less long-running branch in flight > while we review the MIDX bitmaps topic. > > (FWIW, I can also see an argument in the other direction along the lines > of "we may discover something later on that requires us to change the > way multi-pack .rev files work". I think that such an outcome is fairly > unlikely, but worth considering anyway). That would be my general worry, too, but in this case I am not too concerned because I know the code has received substantial exercise already on real-world production servers. So while we may clean up some cosmetic bits or respond to review as it goes upstream, I'm much less worried about seeing some brown-paper-bag bug that would be sufficient to make us want to re-roll these .rev commits. And hopefully the existing rounds have addressed the cosmetic/review bits. -Peff
