On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 01:11:25PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 02:12:30PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > > But it does mirror the behavior of our previous bitmap generation > > settings, which has been running for years. > > > > So... we could probably drop this hunk? I'd probably rather err on the > > safe side and leave this alone since it matches a system that we know to > > work well in practice. > > I'd rather drop it, if we think it's doing nothing. While I do value > history in production as a sign of stability, upstream review is a good > time to make sure we understand all of the "why", and to clean things up > (e.g., another example is the questionable close_midx() stuff discussed > elsewhere). OK, I think that's a very reasonable way of thinking about it, so I'd rather just get rid of it (not to mention that I really doubt it's doing much of anything in the first place). > > Luckily, any new packs will be loaded (and likewise have their indexes > > open, too), via the the add_pack_to_midx() callback that we pass as an > > argument to for_each_file_in_pack_dir(). > > Hmm, OK. Your second paragraph makes it sound like we _don't_ need to do > this. But the key is "new packs". In add_pack_to_midx() we skip any > packs that are already in the existing midx, assuming they've already > been added. And we probably must do that, otherwise we end up with > duplicate structs that are not actually shared by ctx->m. Exactly. > It's interesting that your earlier iteration didn't call > open_pack_index(). Is it necessary, or not? From your description, it > seems like it should be. But maybe some later step lazy-loads it? Even > if so, I can see how prepare_midx_pack() would still be required > (because we want to make sure we are using the same struct). It's only necessary now (at least for determining a preferred pack if the caller didn't specify one with `--preferred-pack`) because we care about reading the `num_objects` field, which the index must be loaded for. Thanks, Taylor
