On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 03:26:47PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 06:32:16PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > * tb/path-filter-fix (2023-08-30) 15 commits > > - bloom: introduce `deinit_bloom_filters()` > > - commit-graph: reuse existing Bloom filters where possible > > - object.h: fix mis-aligned flag bits table > > - commit-graph: drop unnecessary `graph_read_bloom_data_context` > > - commit-graph.c: unconditionally load Bloom filters > > - t/t4216-log-bloom.sh: harden `test_bloom_filters_not_used()` > > - bloom: prepare to discard incompatible Bloom filters > > - bloom: annotate filters with hash version > > - commit-graph: new filter ver. that fixes murmur3 > > - repo-settings: introduce commitgraph.changedPathsVersion > > - t4216: test changed path filters with high bit paths > > - t/helper/test-read-graph: implement `bloom-filters` mode > > - bloom.h: make `load_bloom_filter_from_graph()` public > > - t/helper/test-read-graph.c: extract `dump_graph_info()` > > - gitformat-commit-graph: describe version 2 of BDAT > > > > The Bloom filter used for path limited history traversal was broken > > on systems whose "char" is unsigned; update the implementation and > > bump the format version to 2. > > > > Reroll exists, not picked up yet. > > cf. <20230830200218.GA5147@xxxxxxxxxx> > > cf. <20230901205616.3572722-1-jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> > > cf. <20230924195900.GA1156862@xxxxxxxxxx> > > cf. <20231008143523.GA18858@xxxxxxxxxx> > > source: <cover.1693413637.git.jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Great, thanks for noting that you saw it ;-). I think that this one is > ready to go, but I'm obviously biased and I'd feel better if Jonathan or > Gábor (both CC'd) would take a look before you merge this down. The test I posted in 20230830200218.GA5147@xxxxxxxxxx checking different Bloom filter versions in different commit-graph layers still fails in current seen.
