Re: [PATCH 1/2 v5] pack-objects: respect --local/--honor-pack-keep/--incremental when bitmap is in use

2016-09-12 Thread Junio C Hamano
Kirill Smelkov writes: > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 01:52:22PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > > > Good to know there is no regression. It is curious that there is a > > slight _improvement_ across the board. Do we have an explanation for > > that? It seems odd that noise would be so

Re: [PATCH 1/2 v5] pack-objects: respect --local/--honor-pack-keep/--incremental when bitmap is in use

2016-09-10 Thread Kirill Smelkov
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 01:52:22PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 10:31:43PM +0300, Kirill Smelkov wrote: > > > Since 6b8fda2d (pack-objects: use bitmaps when packing objects) there > > are two codepaths in pack-objects: with & without using bitmap > > reachability index. > >

Re: [PATCH 1/2 v5] pack-objects: respect --local/--honor-pack-keep/--incremental when bitmap is in use

2016-08-18 Thread Jeff King
On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 10:31:43PM +0300, Kirill Smelkov wrote: > Since 6b8fda2d (pack-objects: use bitmaps when packing objects) there > are two codepaths in pack-objects: with & without using bitmap > reachability index. Sorry, I got distracted from reviewing these patches. I'll give them a

[PATCH 1/2 v5] pack-objects: respect --local/--honor-pack-keep/--incremental when bitmap is in use

2016-08-09 Thread Kirill Smelkov
Since 6b8fda2d (pack-objects: use bitmaps when packing objects) there are two codepaths in pack-objects: with & without using bitmap reachability index. However add_object_entry_from_bitmap(), despite its non-bitmapped counterpart add_object_entry(), in no way does check for whether --local or