On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 4:13 AM, Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:49 PM, Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> 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". That makes sense long term. > 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. 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 better kept in the repository. (The alternative would be to duplicate it into the raw object store, but I do not like data duplication) But maybe it is better to duplicate this one bit instead of passing through a larger scoped object. I'll rework the patches. Thanks! Stefan
