On 06/17, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 9:02 AM Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 10:41 PM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy > > <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > This is the beginning of the end of the_index. The problem with > > > the_index is it lets library code anywhere access it freely. This is > > > not good because from high level you may not realize that the_index is > > > being used while you don't want to touch index at all, or you want to > > > use a different index instead. > > > > > > This is a long series, 86 patches [1], so I'm going to split and > > > submit it in 15-20 patches at a time. The first two parts are trivial > > > though and could be safely fast tracked if needed. > > > > You post this small little patch about unpack-trees.c, mentioning you > > don't know if it's even correct, and bait me into reviewing it and > > then spring on me that it's actually nearly 100 patches that need > > review... Very sneaky. ;-) > > To be fair, it's all Brandon's fault. If he didn't kick the_index out > of dir.c, it would not conflict with one of my out-of-tree patches in > unpack-trees.c, catch my attention and make me go down this rabbit > hole :D Haha well this is something I've wanted to do for over a year now, glad you've decided to run with it :) I guess I've gotten pretty good at getting people to go down rabbit holes. First Stefan with the object store refactoring and now you with the index stuff. All because I wanted git to be more object oriented and have less global state ;) -- Brandon Williams
