Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> * jt/repack-local-promisor (2024-11-03) 5 commits >> ... >> Needs review. >> Breaks CI (with a known fix). >> source: <cover.1730491845.git.jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> > > The fixup (in your tree) looks good. > > As for review, for what it's worth, Josh Steadmon has written some > comments [1], which I've addressed. Regarding the big-picture issue > as to whether this solution is the best one for the problem we have, > both Han Young [2] and I have verified (with private repos) that this > solution does not have noticeable performance issues (which was a > concern with other solutions) and I think that this solution does well > to preserve the concept that we know which objects are re-fetchable from > the remote (even if we have created them locally) and which are not. Thanks for helping me with what happened on the list while I was away.
