On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 01:53:01PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> > + for (n = 0; n < group->max_merges; n++)
> > + C += 1.0f / gitexp(n + 1, group->decay);
> > + C = matches->unstable_nr / C;
> > +
> > + return (int)((C / gitexp(i + 1, group->decay)) + 0.5);
>
> Why do we cast the return to `int` when the function returns a
> `uint32_t`?
Oops, great catch. This should cast to a uint32_t, not a signed type.
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void init_pseudo_merge_group(struct pseudo_merge_group *group)
>
> Nit: Should't the name rather be `pseudo_merge_group_init()`?
Sure, I can change that.
> [snip]
> > + } else if (!strcmp(key, "decay")) {
> > + group->decay = git_config_int(var, value, ctx->kvi);
> > + if (group->decay < 0) {
> > + warning(_("%s must be non-negative, using default"), var);
> > + group->decay = DEFAULT_PSEUDO_MERGE_DECAY;
> > + }
>
> The decay is a float, and your decay rate examples mention a rate of
> 1.5f. It's impossible to specify fractional rates though because we use
> `git_config_int()`. Should we introduce a new `git_config_float()`
> function to implement this properly?
Good idea. I had addressed this with the sample rate by making the
configured value a percentage (0-100) that was scaled down by 100, but
for some reason I neglected to do the same here. I'll introduce a new
float parser.
> > + } else if (!strcmp(key, "samplerate")) {
> > + group->sample_rate = git_config_int(var, value, ctx->kvi);
> > + if (!(0 <= group->sample_rate && group->sample_rate <= 100)) {
> > + warning(_("%s must be between 0 and 100, using default"), var);
> > + group->sample_rate = DEFAULT_PSEUDO_MERGE_SAMPLE_RATE;
> > + }
> > + } else if (!strcmp(key, "threshold")) {
> > + if (git_config_expiry_date(&group->threshold, var, value)) {
> > + strbuf_release(&buf);
>
> Instead of having multiple exit paths where we need to release `buf` we
> should likely have a comment exit path.
Good call, thanks!
> [snip]
> > +static struct commit *push_pseudo_merge(struct pseudo_merge_group *group)
> > +{
> > + struct commit *merge;
> > +
> > + ALLOC_GROW(group->merges, group->merges_nr + 1, group->merges_alloc);
> > +
> > + merge = alloc_commit_node(the_repository);
> > + merge->object.parsed = 1;
>
> Why can we mark the object as parsed here?
We have to mark it as parsed since there is no object buffer underlying
this fake commit node. If we try and parse it later on it will fail
since we won't be able to find a corresponding buffer.
> > + merge->object.flags |= BITMAP_PSEUDO_MERGE;
> > +
> > + group->merges[group->merges_nr++] = merge;
> > +
> > + return merge;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static struct pseudo_merge_commit_idx *pseudo_merge_idx(kh_oid_map_t *pseudo_merge_commits,
> > + const struct object_id *oid)
> > +
> > +{
> > + struct pseudo_merge_commit_idx *pmc;
> > + khiter_t hash_pos;
> > +
> > + hash_pos = kh_get_oid_map(pseudo_merge_commits, *oid);
> > + if (hash_pos == kh_end(pseudo_merge_commits)) {
> > + int hash_ret;
> > + hash_pos = kh_put_oid_map(pseudo_merge_commits, *oid, &hash_ret);
> > + CALLOC_ARRAY(pmc, 1);
> > +
> > + kh_value(pseudo_merge_commits, hash_pos) = pmc;
> > + } else {
> > + pmc = kh_value(pseudo_merge_commits, hash_pos);
> > + }
> > +
> > + return pmc;
> > +}
>
> Can't we simplify this to the following (untested):
>
> static struct pseudo_merge_commit_idx *pseudo_merge_idx(kh_oid_map_t *pseudo_merge_commits,
> const struct object_id *oid)
> {
> struct pseudo_merge_commit_idx *pmc;
> khiter_t hash_pos;
> int hash_ret;
>
> hash_pos = kh_put_oid_map(pseudo_merge_commits, *oid, &hash_ret);
> if (hash_ret) {
> CALLOC_ARRAY(pmc, 1);
> kh_value(pseudo_merge_commits, hash_pos) = pmc;
>
> } else {
> pmc = kh_value(pseudo_merge_commits, hash_pos);
> }
>
> return pmc;
> }
Nice suggestion, I think that should work great.
> > +
> > +#define MIN_PSEUDO_MERGE_SIZE 8
> > +
> > +static void select_pseudo_merges_1(struct pseudo_merge_group *group,
> > + struct pseudo_merge_matches *matches,
> > + kh_oid_map_t *pseudo_merge_commits,
> > + uint32_t *pseudo_merges_nr)
> > +{
> > + uint32_t i, j;
> > + uint32_t stable_merges_nr;
> > +
> > + if (!matches->stable_nr && !matches->unstable_nr)
> > + return; /* all tips in this group already have bitmaps */
>
> It's nice that there are some comments, but there are quite a lot of
> non-obvious things going on in this function that would warrant an
> explanation that expands a bit more into what exactly it is that we are
> doing here.
>
> I may only be speaking for myself, but I basically have no clue what we
> do here :) Something something pseudo merges, I guess. But there is no
> in-code explanation at all what a "stable" or "unstable" commit is, how
> exactly we match commits and other higher-level ideas.
Very fair. I added some comments throughout to try and make this
function's purpose more clear. Thanks for all of the great review so
far!
Thanks,
Taylor
