On 05/03/2017 09:29 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jonathan Tan <jonathanta...@google.com> writes:
I see the semantics as "don't write what you already have", where
"have" means what you have in local storage, but if you extend "have"
to what upstream has, then yes, you're right that this changes
(ignoring shallow clones).
This does remove a resistance that we have against hash collision (in
that normally we would have the correct object for a given hash and
can resist other servers trying to introduce a wrong object, but now
that is no longer the case), but I think it's better than consulting
the hook whenever you want to write anything (which is also a change
in semantics in that you're consulting an external source whenever
you're writing an object, besides the performance implications).
As long as the above pros-and-cons analysis is understood and we are
striking a balance between performance and strictness with such an
understanding of the implications, I am perfectly fine with the
proposal. That is why my comment has never been "I think that is
wrong" but consistently was "I wonder if that is a good thing."
Thanks.
Noted - if/when I update the patch, I'll include this information in.
