On 7/8/2021 9:16 PM, Elijah Newren wrote: > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 7:32 AM Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 7:04 PM Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget >> <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> This is the first "payoff" series in the sparse-index work. It makes 'git >>> status' very fast when a sparse-index is enabled on a repository with >>> cone-mode sparse-checkout (and a small populated set). >>> > ... >>> Because the range-diff is a big difficult to read this time, I'll break the >>> changes down on a patch-by-patch basis. > > Thanks for doing this; it was helpful. > >> This is SUPER exciting. I've only read the cover letter, but it >> strongly suggests you've not only handled all my feedback in previous >> rounds, but got things pretty solidly nailed away. I'll try to make >> some time to go over it all soon. > > You have indeed addressed nearly all my feedback in previous rounds, > and I found few problems with all the new code in this round. > Overall, this round is looking really good, though there are a couple > things I called out in comments on individual patches that I'll > summarize here: This summary is nice. I will try to do a similar thing myself in the future. > Patch 9: a few minor suggestions for improving comments Done. > Patch 10: the new code is never triggered and probably should either > be dropped or made part of a later series if the later series needs > it. Also, although it doesn't necessarily need to hold up this > series, I found a bug affecting sparse-checkouts with or without > sparse-index while trying to understand this patch. I checked and this patch is not necessary until the next series, so I will move it to that one. > Patch 12: the code was slightly confusing to me, but I found that > there seems to be an invariant it is based upon. Adding an assert > with a comment or just a comment about this invariant might help make > the code more readable. The assert() plus a better comment makes this patch cleaner. > Patch 15: since the new tests in t1092 are written to compare > sparse-checkout and sparse-index, it seems we should investigate a bug > where the testsuite commands we invoke are giving incorrect behavior > in both sparse-checkout and sparse-index. I have made a note in an internal tracker to follow-up on this along with some other behavior things that currently exist in sparse-checkout as they should be pursued in a separate series. I'm not ignoring your comments, but I would like to keep these patches that change the underlying data structure from being conflated with behavior changes. The fact that I am discovering (and documenting in tests) the changes is only highlighting that they already exist. Thanks, -Stolee
