On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:03 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > I do not envision that, maybe Christian Couder does? The partial clone world would be happy with just one object store per repo, I would think. The step to take an object store would just add expressiveness to the code, which may help in understanding what part of the code is related to what other part of the code, so it may be a readability gain on its own?
