On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 03:51:08PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > One very minor thing is that how much value are we getting by > > reporting the object names of one example from each camp, instead of > > just reporting a single bit "we have commits not counted and also > > counted their generations, which is an anomaly". > > > > Obviously it does not matter. Even if we stopped doing so, the code > > would not become much simpler. We'd just use a word with two bits > > instead of two pointers to existing in-core objects, which does not > > have meaningful performance implications either way. > > Yeah, I wasn't sure if the commit names were valuable or not. Two bits > would definitely work (though I have a slight preference for two > boolean variables, just because I find the syntax easier to read). I think having a single example of both a commit with zero and non-zero generation is marginally useful. I think keeping track of two commit pointers is more straightforward than the bit-field, and it does not complicate things too much, so I think it is worth keeping. > I don't think we've heard from Taylor, but I saw his original patches > were in 'next'. I'm happy to clean up what I posted, but I'm also happy > if we just merge what's in next and move on. Sorry that this fell to the bottom of my queue, which I am just digging out of now that 2.42.0 has been tagged. I think that the clean-up you suggested is worthwhile. Let's replace what we have in 'next' with the reroll that I'm about to submit... Thanks, Taylor
