Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > For what it's worth, I think I prefer v1. I put some comments on why > on patch 0 of v1 and would be interested in your thoughts on them > (e.g. as a reply to that). I also think that even if we want to > switch to a style that passes around object_store separately from > repository, it is easier to do the migration in two steps: first get > rid of hidden dependencies on the_repository, then do the (simpler) > automatic migration from > > f(the_repository) > > to > > f(the_repository->object_store) > > *afterwards*. > > Thoughts? Are we envisioning the future in which one repository has more than one object-store (I am counting an object store and its alternates that are pointed by its $GIT_OBJECT_DIRECTORY/info/alternates as a single logical "object store")? If not, doing f(the_repository) migration, stopping there without f(the_repository->object_store) may perfectly be adequate, I would think.
