On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:49 PM, Duy Nguyen <pclo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 05:22:15PM -0800, Stefan Beller wrote: >> This is a real take on the first part of the recent RFC[1]. >> >> ... >> >> Duy suggested that we shall not use the repository blindly, but >> should carefully examine whether to pass on an object store or the >> refstore or such[4], which I agree with if it makes sense. This >> series unfortunately has an issue with that as I would not want to >> pass down the `ignore_env` flag separately from the object store, so >> I made all functions that only take the object store to have the raw >> object store as the first parameter, and others using the full >> repository. > > Second proposal :) How about you store ignore_env in raw_object_store? > This would not be the first time an object has some configuration > passed in at construction time. And it has a "constructor" now, > raw_object_store_init() (I probably should merge _setup in it too)
A bit more on this configuration parameters. Down the road I think we need something like this anyway to delete global config vars like packed_git_window_size, delta_base_cache_limit... Either all these end up in raw_object_store, or raw_object_store holds a link to "struct config_set". The ignore_env specifically though looks to me like a stop gap solution until everything goes through repo_init() first. At that point we don't have to delay getenv() anymore. We can getenv() all at repo_init() then pass them in raw_object_store and ignore_env should be gone. So sticking it inside raw_object_store _temporarily_ does not sound so bad. -- Duy
