On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 09:44:38AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > What I'm getting as it that I think we have three options for v2.43: > > > > 1. Ship what has been in the release candidates, which has a known > > performance regression (though the severity is up for debate). > > > > 2. Flip the default to "0" (i.e., Patrick's patch in this thread). We > > know that loosens some cases versus 2.42, which may be considered a > > regression. > > > > 3. Sort it out before the release. We're getting pretty close to do > > a lot new work there, but I think the changes should be small-ish. > > The nuclear option is ejecting the topic and re-doing it in the > > next cycle. > > > > I don't have a really strong preference between the three. > > I've been (naively) assuming that #1 is everybody's preference, > simply because #2 does introduce a regression in the correctness > department (as opposed to a possible performance regression caused > by #1), and because #3 has a high risk of screwing up. > > As long as the performance regression is known and on our radar, > I'd say that working on a maintenance release after Thanksgiving > would be sufficient. > > I might be underestimating the impact of the loss of performance, > though, in which case I'd consider that nuclear one, which is the > simplest and least risky. I am fine with #1 for the release. Mostly I just wanted to understand what the plan was (and if we needed to be hurrying to try to make the non-nuclear #3 work). -Peff
