"brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 2021-04-14 at 23:22:19, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Here is the (local) test status near the tip of 'seen', relative to >> the integration result last night. >> >> * hn/reftable has a preparatory change to use oidread() instead of >> hashcpy() in places queued at its tip. This is essentially a >> no-op in the codebase without bc/hash-transition-interop-part-1 >> and would be a bugfix with that topic. Please squash it into an >> appropriate step in the series when updating the topic in the >> future. >> >> * ab/unexpected-object-type topic has an assertion to catch >> semantic conflicts with topics in-flight queued at its tip. It >> would probably be safe to carry it until the topioc is merged to >> 'master' and then remove it after the dust settles. Please >> squash it into an appropriate step in the series when updating >> the topic in the future. >> >> * The tip of 'seen' passes all the tests locally, except that t5540 >> fails when compiled with CC=clang (http-push exits with signal >> 11). bc/hash-transition-interop-part-1, which is at the tip of >> 'seen', seems to have this issue standalone. FYI, here is what >> "clang --version" gives me: >> >> Debian clang version 11.0.1-2 >> Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu >> Thread model: posix >> InstalledDir: /usr/bin > > You should expect a reroll, so feel free to drop this if it breaks > things for now and I'll figure out where things are going wrong. I actually do appreciate the topic to be in 'seen', as these integration exercises tend to serve as an early warning for impending messy conflicts I'll need to be worried about. I do worry about the memory requirement bloat of the object_id structure, as we do need to keep one instance per object in-core, but the squashable fix for the reftable topic given by Patrick to replace use of hashcpy() with oidread() is still a good idea even if we are going to use a different mechanism to keep track of which object_id instance uses what hash algorithm, so again I am happy to have seen your bc/hash-transition-interop-part-1 topic and had an early chance to make it collide with others ;-) Thanks.
