Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:03 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > One technique these (not just this) recent efforts seem to be >> > forgetting is to introduce "new" names that take a_repo and then >> > make the existing one a thin wrapper that calls the new one with >> > &the_repo as the argument. > > So you'd rather want to see it less invasive done similar to > NO_THE_INDEX_COMPATIBILITY_MACROS ? Someone (jrnieder?) > called that a failed experiment, as now we need to carry that baggage > for quite some time and never cleaned up the started migration; > only recently Duy started to kill off the_index, which would finish > that migration? I do not think it was a failed experiment at all. In fact, most of our code is still happy with the single in-core instance of the_index, and I think it is a mistake to trying to use the variant that take an istate instance as parameter just for the sake of it. IOW, if there is a good concrete reason why it helps to teach the set of functions involved in a callchain to operate on an in-core instance of the index_state, passing an istate through the callchain is a very welcome change. If you do not do so, and then just replace $foo_cache(...) with $foo_index(&the_index, ...), that is an irritating and useless code churn that harms other topics in flight.
