Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> @@ -445,18 +444,6 @@ static int open_midx_bitmap_1(struct bitmap_index *bitmap_git,
> }
> }
>
> - if (midx_preferred_pack(bitmap_git->midx, &preferred_pack) < 0) {
> - warning(_("could not determine MIDX preferred pack"));
> - goto cleanup;
> - }
> -
> - preferred = bitmap_git->midx->packs[preferred_pack];
> - if (!is_pack_valid(preferred)) {
> - warning(_("preferred pack (%s) is invalid"),
> - preferred->pack_name);
> - goto cleanup;
> - }
> -
> return 0;
This is a pure removal, not the block of code moved elsewhere. I am
having a hard time resolving the conflict between this one and what
f34db3f6 (pack-bitmap.c: open and store incremental bitmap layers,
2024-11-19) did to the same part of the file, which is:
@@ -459,13 +478,20 @@ static int open_midx_bitmap_1(struct bitmap_index *bitmap_git,
goto cleanup;
}
- preferred = bitmap_git->midx->packs[preferred_pack];
+ preferred = nth_midxed_pack(bitmap_git->midx, preferred_pack);
if (!is_pack_valid(preferred)) {
warning(_("preferred pack (%s) is invalid"),
preferred->pack_name);
goto cleanup;
}
+ if (midx->base_midx) {
+ bitmap_git->base = prepare_midx_bitmap_git(midx->base_midx);
+ bitmap_git->base_nr = bitmap_git->base->base_nr + 1;
+ } else {
+ bitmap_git->base_nr = 1;
+ }
+
return 0;
cleanup:
Both are from you, and I am guessing that you have tried all of your
topics in flight together, if not the other topics. I wonder what
we can do better to make sure the work a contributor has already
done (in this case, resolve interaction between two topics) is not
wasted and recreated (possibly incorrectly) by the maintainer.
Thanks.
