Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> ... A bit worried about transactions though,
> because I think per-repo and per-worktree updates will be separated in
> two transactions. But that's probably ok because future backends, like
> lmdb, will have to go through the same route anyway.
If we have per-worktree ref-store, what can be done as a useful
thing by future backends like lmdb may be to use the same single
database to store shared and per-worktree refs, similar to the way
Michael mentioned in his response to your message I am responding
to, i.e.
I kindof think that it would have been a better design to store the
references for all linked worktrees in the main repository's ref-store.
For example, the "bisect" refs for a worktree named "<name>" could have
been stored under "refs/worktrees/<name>/bisect/*".
The current design is heavily influenced by how "contrib/workdir"
lays things out, for the latter of which I take the blame X-<, but
perhaps the files backend can be retrofitted to use that layout in
the longer term?