On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 09:29:02AM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote: > > I know that this topic was split out of a larger one. It may be worth > > seeing if there is a way to split this topic out into multiple series > > that are more easily review-able, but still sensible on their own. > > I'll see what I can do. I needed to re-roll after discovering an issue > when trying to integrate the algorithm with shallow clones. The solution > ends up simplifying the code, which is nice. It's always nice when that happens :-). Should we avoid reviewing the current round in anticipation of a somewhat restructured series, or would you like us to review the current round as well? > > I haven't looked in enough depth to know myself whether such a cut > > exists, but it is worth thinking about if you haven't done so already. > > In the current series, there's a natural cut between patches 1-4 > and the rest, if we want to put the API in without a non-test consumer. > > I could also split out the 'git repack' changes into a third series. > > Finally, the threading implementation could be done separately, but I > think it's not complicated enough to leave out from the first version > of the --path-walk option in 'git pack-objects'. I'd suggest erring on the side of more smaller series rather than a single large one. If you feel like there are cut points where we can review them in isolation and still see some benefit, or at least clearly how they each fit into the larger puzzle, I think that is worth doing. But I trust your judgement here, so if you think that the series is best reviewed as a whole, then that's fine too. Just my $.02 :-). Thanks, Taylor
