From: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
To: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Cc: Teng Long <dyroneteng@gmail.com>,
gitster@pobox.com, derrickstolee@github.com, git@vger.kernel.org,
tenglong.tl@alibaba-inc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] pack-bitmap.c: avoid exposing absolute paths
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2022 01:19:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <221027.86czaeb1xt.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y1mp23NHB0qzKsPR@nand.local>
On Wed, Oct 26 2022, Taylor Blau wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 10:48:03AM +0800, Teng Long wrote:
>> > If the "ignoring extra" is a totally expected situation (e.g. it is
>> > not suprising if we always ignore the bitmapfile in the alternate
>> > when we have our own), perhaps we should squelch the warning in such
>> > expected cases altogether (while warning other cases where we see
>> > more bitmap files than we expect to see, which may be an anomaly
>> > worth warning about), and that may be an improvement worth spending
>> > development cycles on, but I am not sure about this one.
>>
>> That's exactly good suggestion. In my opinion, I think to avoid the sensitive
>> warning and the same time we keep some information to let the users know "Oh,
>> there are some extra existing bitmaps we just ignored then maybe can do some
>> optimization works", but I think just remove the total warning here is
>> reasonable also, i'm good with it.
>
> I think that it is somewhat of a step backwards to remove it entirely,
> but let me qualify that a little bit.
>
> At GitHub, we actually *do* remove this warning entirely:
You at GitHub also added it entirely :) => fff42755efc (pack-bitmap: add
support for bitmap indexes, 2013-12-21).
Anyway, I'm fine with removing it. From skimming that commit it was
probably added for no particularly strong reason. But I found the
omission of "it was added in xyz commit" to be sometihng that could be
added to the commit message in this case, and....
> You could also imagine adding a configuration knob here to control
> whether or not the warning is shown, but I find that to be kind of
> gross.
FWIW I don't find that to be particularly gross. I think it's fine to
just delete it.
But isn't this a general sign that we should perhaps have different
output when "pack-objects" and the like is run "locally", v.s. when
we're running via some server process, and end up spewing a message out
that the user can't do anything about?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-26 23:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-26 7:09 [PATCH 0/1] pack-bitmap.c: avoid exposing absolute paths Teng Long
2022-08-26 7:09 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Teng Long
2022-08-26 16:34 ` [PATCH 0/1] " Junio C Hamano
2022-08-29 2:48 ` Teng Long
2022-10-26 21:42 ` Taylor Blau
2022-10-26 23:19 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [this message]
2022-10-31 13:20 ` Teng Long
2022-10-27 20:45 ` Jeff King
2022-10-30 18:42 ` Taylor Blau
2022-10-31 12:22 ` [PATCH 0/1] pack-bitmap.c: avoid exposing absolute paths Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes: Teng Long
2022-11-02 5:37 ` [PATCH 0/1] pack-bitmap.c: avoid exposing absolute paths Teng Long
2022-11-02 7:54 ` Jeff King
2022-11-02 13:52 ` Teng Long
2022-10-31 13:13 ` Teng Long
2022-11-03 1:00 ` Taylor Blau
2022-11-02 9:20 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-11-02 13:04 ` Teng Long
2022-11-02 12:56 ` [PATCH v2 " Teng Long
2022-11-02 12:56 ` [PATCH v2 1/1] " Teng Long
2022-11-03 1:16 ` Taylor Blau
2022-11-03 9:35 ` Teng Long
2022-11-05 0:35 ` Taylor Blau
2022-11-03 1:21 ` [PATCH v2 0/1] " Taylor Blau
2022-11-03 8:42 ` Teng Long
2022-11-04 3:17 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] " Teng Long
2022-11-04 3:17 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] " Teng Long
2022-11-04 22:11 ` Taylor Blau
2022-11-04 3:17 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] pack-bitmap.c: remove unnecessary "open_pack_index()" calls Teng Long
2022-11-04 22:09 ` Taylor Blau
2022-11-04 22:13 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] pack-bitmap.c: avoid exposing absolute paths Taylor Blau
2022-11-10 7:10 ` Teng Long
2022-11-10 7:10 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] pack-bitmap.c: remove unnecessary "open_pack_index()" calls Teng Long
2022-11-14 22:03 ` Jeff King
2022-11-14 22:14 ` Taylor Blau
2022-11-14 22:31 ` Jeff King
2022-11-14 22:50 ` Taylor Blau
2022-11-10 7:10 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] pack-bitmap.c: avoid exposing absolute paths Teng Long
2022-11-11 22:26 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] " Taylor Blau
2022-11-14 22:23 ` Jeff King
2022-11-17 14:19 ` Teng Long
2022-11-17 15:03 ` Jeff King
2022-11-17 21:57 ` Taylor Blau
2022-11-21 3:27 ` Teng Long
2022-11-21 12:16 ` [PATCH v4 0/4] " Teng Long
2022-11-21 12:16 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] pack-bitmap.c: remove unnecessary "open_pack_index()" calls Teng Long
2022-11-21 12:16 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] pack-bitmap.c: avoid exposing absolute paths Teng Long
2022-11-21 12:16 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] pack-bitmap.c: break out of the bitmap loop early if not tracing Teng Long
2022-11-21 23:27 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-11-28 13:09 ` Teng Long
2022-11-21 12:16 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] pack-bitmap.c: trace bitmap ignore logs when midx-bitmap is found Teng Long
2022-11-21 19:09 ` Jeff King
2022-11-21 23:29 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-11-28 12:29 ` Teng Long
2022-11-28 12:37 ` Teng Long
2022-11-29 1:27 ` Jeff King
2022-11-29 13:14 ` Teng Long
2022-11-21 19:04 ` [PATCH v4 0/4] pack-bitmap.c: avoid exposing absolute paths Jeff King
2022-11-28 12:48 ` Teng Long
2022-11-28 14:09 ` [PATCH v5 " Teng Long
2022-11-28 14:09 ` [PATCH v5 1/4] pack-bitmap.c: remove unnecessary "open_pack_index()" calls Teng Long
2022-11-28 14:09 ` [PATCH v5 2/4] pack-bitmap.c: avoid exposing absolute paths Teng Long
2022-11-28 14:09 ` [PATCH v5 3/4] pack-bitmap.c: break out of the bitmap loop early if not tracing Teng Long
2022-11-28 23:26 ` Taylor Blau
2022-11-29 13:17 ` Teng Long
2022-11-28 14:09 ` [PATCH v5 4/4] pack-bitmap.c: trace bitmap ignore logs when midx-bitmap is found Teng Long
2022-11-28 23:30 ` [PATCH v5 0/4] pack-bitmap.c: avoid exposing absolute paths Taylor Blau
2022-11-29 13:21 ` Teng Long
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=221027.86czaeb1xt.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com \
--to=avarab@gmail.com \
--cc=derrickstolee@github.com \
--cc=dyroneteng@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=me@ttaylorr.com \
--cc=tenglong.tl@alibaba-inc.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).