Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 3/17/2022 11:55 AM, Victoria Dye via GitGitGadget wrote: >> From: Victoria Dye <vdye@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Correct tracking of the 'cache_bottom' for cases where sparse directories >> are present in the index. > > Thank you for the detailed background (that I cut from my reply). > >> CORRECTING CACHE_BOTTOM >> ----------------------- >> The problems observed in 't1092' come from 'cache_bottom' lagging behind in >> cases where the cache tree-based advancement doesn't occur. To solve this, >> then, the fix in 17a1bb570b is "reversed"; rather than skipping >> 'cache_bottom' advancement in 'mark_ce_used()', we skip the directory >> contents-based advancement for sparse directories. Now, every index entry >> can be accounted for in 'cache_bottom': > > I have sufficient background to be confident that you are doing the > right thing here! ;-) The "partly lagging" walking of the index guided by cache_bottom has been a tricky thing in the unpack_trees machinery, and I am very happy that we now have two more experts on the topic ;-) Thanks, both.
