On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 03:39:29PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
> > diff --git a/pack-bitmap.h b/pack-bitmap.h
> > index 4555907dee..02a60ce670 100644
> > --- a/pack-bitmap.h
> > +++ b/pack-bitmap.h
> > @@ -50,6 +50,13 @@ int rebuild_existing_bitmaps(struct bitmap_index *,
> > struct packing_data *mapping
> > khash_sha1 *reused_bitmaps, int show_progress);
> > void free_bitmap_index(struct bitmap_index *);
> >
> > +/*
> > + * After a traversal has been performed on the bitmap_index, this can be
> > + * queried to see if a particular object was reachable from any of the
> > + * objects flagged as UNINTERESTING.
>
> If the traversal has not been performed, we pretend the
> object was not reachable?
If the traversal hasn't been performed, the results are not defined
(though I suspect yeah, it happens to say "no").
> Is this a good API design, as it can be used when you do not
> have done all preparations? similarly to prepare_bitmap_walk
> we could have
>
> if (!bitmap_git->result)
> BUG("failed to perform bitmap walk before querying");
That seems like a reasonable precaution.
> > +int bitmap_has_sha1_in_uninteresting(struct bitmap_index *, const unsigned
> > char *sha1);
>
> You seem to have rebased it to master resolving conflicts only. ;-)
> Do we want to talk about object ids here instead?
See the discussion in the commit message.
-Peff
