On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 04:50:31AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 04:16:07PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > > > > I dunno. Like I said, I was able to follow it, so maybe it is > > > sufficient. I'm just not sure others would be able to. > > > > I think that others will follow it, too. But I agree that it is > > confusing, since we're fixing a bug that doesn't yet exist. In reality, > > I wrote this patch after sending v1, and then reordered its position to > > come before the implementation of MIDX bitmaps for that reason. > > > > So in one sense, I prefer it this way because we don't ever introduce > > the bug. But in another sense, it is very jarring to read about an > > interaction that has no basis in the code (yet). > > > > I think that the best thing we could do without adding any significant > > reordering would be to just call out the situation we're in. I added > > this onto the end of the commit message which I think makes things a > > little clearer: > > > > (Note that multi-pack reachability bitmaps have yet to be > > implemented; so in that sense this patch is fixing a bug which does > > not yet exist. But by having this patch beforehand, we can prevent > > the bug from ever materializing.) > > I do like fixing it up front. Here's my attempt at rewriting the commit > message. I tried to omit details about pack order, and instead refer to > the revindex code, and instead add more explanation of how this relates > to the pack-reuse code. > > Something like: > > [...] > > Thoughts? I like it, although reading it fresh I found the sentence beginning with "So if the user did not specify a preferred pack" to be a little confusing. To connect it back to the previous paragraph, I added: ... in order to avoid a situation where no pack is marked as preferred (breaking our assumption about the pack representing the object at the 0th bit). and that read out much clearer (to me at least). Thanks, Taylor
