Re: [PATCH 00/26] Moving global state into the repository object (part 1)

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Stefan Beller writes: > >> This is a real take on the first part of the recent RFC[1]. > > For the patches remaining in this series, The scope is about right > and the size is more manageable. ok,

Re: [PATCH 00/26] Moving global state into the repository object (part 1)

Stefan Beller writes: > This is a real take on the first part of the recent RFC[1]. For the patches remaining in this series, The scope is about right and the size is more manageable. With topics already on 'master', they have some interactions: - ot/mru-on-list &

Re: [PATCH 00/26] Moving global state into the repository object (part 1)

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 2:26 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: >> 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

Re: [PATCH 00/26] Moving global state into the repository object (part 1)

Stefan Beller writes: > Which is why I'd strongly consider having it only in the repository > object as that is the largest-scoped thing we'd want. e.g. submodules > should care about environment variables differently: > > GIT_WORK_TREE=~/mysuperproject git checkout \ >

Re: [PATCH 00/26] Moving global state into the repository object (part 1)

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Stefan Beller writes: > >> For now the ignore_env bit lives in the repository, as that helps >> when working with submodules, when reading its comments. >> Unfortunately 359efeffc1 (repository:

Re: [PATCH 00/26] Moving global state into the repository object (part 1)

Stefan Beller writes: > For now the ignore_env bit lives in the repository, as that helps > when working with submodules, when reading its comments. > Unfortunately 359efeffc1 (repository: introduce the repository > object, 2017-06-22) did not reason about the existence of

Re: [PATCH 00/26] Moving global state into the repository object (part 1)

On 02/12, Stefan Beller wrote: > This is a real take on the first part of the recent RFC[1]. > > Jonathan Tan suggested[2] that "sha1_loose_object_info to handle arbitrary > repositories" > might be a good breaking point for a first part at that RFC at patch 38. > This series is smaller and

Re: [PATCH 00/26] Moving global state into the repository object (part 1)

Hi, Stefan Beller wrote: > This is a real take on the first part of the recent RFC[1]. > > Jonathan Tan suggested[2] that "sha1_loose_object_info to handle arbitrary > repositories" > might be a good breaking point for a first part at that RFC at patch 38. > This series is smaller and contains

Re: [PATCH 00/26] Moving global state into the repository object (part 1)

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Stefan Beller writes: > >> Oh, that is an interesting perspective. Here is how I arrived at the opposite >> conclusion initially: Searching for 'ignore_env' shows that we care about it >> as well for

Re: [PATCH 00/26] Moving global state into the repository object (part 1)

Stefan Beller writes: > Oh, that is an interesting perspective. Here is how I arrived at the opposite > conclusion initially: Searching for 'ignore_env' shows that we care about it > as well for the index and graft paths, which are not the object store, hence > it would be

Re: [PATCH 00/26] Moving global state into the repository object (part 1)

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 4:13 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:49 PM, Duy Nguyen 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

Re: [PATCH 00/26] Moving global state into the repository object (part 1)

On 02/13, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:49 PM, Duy Nguyen 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

Re: [PATCH 00/26] Moving global state into the repository object (part 1)

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:49 PM, Duy Nguyen 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

Re: [PATCH 00/26] Moving global state into the repository object (part 1)

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],

Re: [PATCH 00/26] Moving global state into the repository object (part 1)

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Stefan Beller wrote: > I developed this series [...] on top of current master. also available at https://github.com/stefanbeller/git/tree/object-store-part1

[PATCH 00/26] Moving global state into the repository object (part 1)

This is a real take on the first part of the recent RFC[1]. Jonathan Tan suggested[2] that "sha1_loose_object_info to handle arbitrary repositories" might be a good breaking point for a first part at that RFC at patch 38. This series is smaller and contains only 26 patches as the patches in the