On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 08:44:29AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > They're not technically required to be in sync. It is OK for the midx > > bitmaps to have different options than the ones we make for packs. And > > in theory they could intentionally diverge, though in practice I don't > > think we (yet) have any extensions or options that would be more > > appropriate for one or the other. > > > > So if we did want to join them, I think it would make sense to still be > > able to use different flags for each situation, but initialize them from > > a common definition. > > Thanks for great explanation---I guess it is not worth pursuing, > then. It is not like it would make the system misbehave when two > are set differently. Hah, Peff beat me to it. I saw your reply last night and was going to write you a very similar response. I think the summary from my perspective would be that: the two could fall out-of-sync intentionally if we want the two commands to ever have different defaults. Tangentially we could use some common "bitmap_flags" field whose bits are defined in pack-bitmap.h and used in both places. The latter is a bit awkward currently because the current "flags" that we pass into the MIDX machinery from the builtin all have MIDX-specific meanings. So we would have to either make sure that MIDX uses separate bit positions (which is awful and far too fragile for my comfort/taste) or store them as a separate set of flags (I think what Peff is getting at above). Thanks, Taylor
