Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 05:49:34PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> * tb/incremental-midx-part-2 (2024-11-20) 15 commits >> - midx: implement writing incremental MIDX bitmaps >> - pack-bitmap.c: use `ewah_or_iterator` for type bitmap iterators >> - pack-bitmap.c: keep track of each layer's type bitmaps >> - ewah: implement `struct ewah_or_iterator` >> - pack-bitmap.c: apply pseudo-merge commits with incremental MIDXs >> - pack-bitmap.c: compute disk-usage with incremental MIDXs >> - pack-bitmap.c: teach `rev-list --test-bitmap` about incremental MIDXs >> - pack-bitmap.c: support bitmap pack-reuse with incremental MIDXs >> - pack-bitmap.c: teach `show_objects_for_type()` about incremental MIDXs >> - pack-bitmap.c: teach `bitmap_for_commit()` about incremental MIDXs >> - pack-bitmap.c: open and store incremental bitmap layers >> - pack-revindex: prepare for incremental MIDX bitmaps >> - Documentation: describe incremental MIDX bitmaps >> - Merge branch 'tb/pseudo-merge-bitmap-fixes' into tb/incremental-midx-part-2 >> - Merge branch 'tb/incremental-midx-part-1' into tb/incremental-midx-part-2 >> >> Incrementally updating multi-pack index files. >> >> Needs review. >> source: <cover.1732054032.git.me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Sorry for not making clearer that I had changed the base to current > 'master' for this topic, so these two merges should no longer be > necessary. Yeah, I know (see my other message on the topic). I just didn't see a reason to rebase and keeping the same base is slighly easier to compare the two iterations, with and without range-diff. > One topic I did not see is [1], which appeared not to be picked up in > this or the last cycle. That topic has been reviewed and should be in > good shape. I think the thread died down after agreeing on some > potentially interesting future improvements we could make, but I don't > think there were any outstanding issues with the current patches. > ... > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/cover.1730833506.git.me@xxxxxxxxxxxx/
