On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 10:05:04AM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote: > One thing that I realized while reading it is that the multi-pack-index is > not integrated into the for_each_packed_object method. I was already going > to work on some cleanups in that area [1][2]. > > When using the new flag with the multi-pack-index, I expect that we will > want to load the pack-files that are covered by the multi-pack-index > (simply, the 'packs' array) and use the same mechanism to traverse them in > order. The only "strange" thing about this is that we would see duplicate > objects when traversing the pack-files directly but not when traversing the > multi-pack-index (since it de-duplicates when indexing).
I think that makes sense. We already see duplicates from for_each_packed_object() when they're in multiple packs, and callers just need to be ready to deal with it (and depending on what you're doing, you may actually _want_ the duplicates). Thanks for thinking through the implications for other topics. I hadn't even considered how this would interact with midx. -Peff
