On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 4:36 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > #ifdef NO_FAST_WORKING_DIRECTORY
> > #define FAST_WORKING_DIRECTORY 0
> > @@ -6489,7 +6490,7 @@ static void add_if_missing(struct oid_array *to_fetch,
> >
> > void diffcore_std(struct diff_options *options)
> > {
> > - if (repository_format_partial_clone) {
> > + if (has_promisor_remote()) {
>
> Hmph, I see quite a few references to the variable disappears
> between next and pu. Is it that in the new world order, nobody
> outside the low-level object-access layer should look at the
> variable directly, but instead ask the has_promisor_remote()
> function?
Yeah, repository_format_partial_clone contains the remote configured
in extensions.partialclone, while in the new world order there can be
other promisor remotes than this one, and most of the code is only
interested in asking if we use any promisor remote.
> If so, can we at least document that? Making it static
> (or at least renaming it) would have helped the compiler to notice
> this semantic merge conflict better.
Ok, I will see if I can make it static (or maybe rename it).
Patch 3f82acbca2 (Use promisor_remote_get_direct() and
has_promisor_remote(), 2019-04-01) in cc/multi-promisor starts with:
Use promisor_remote_get_direct() and has_promisor_remote()
Instead of using the repository_format_partial_clone global
and fetch_objects() directly, let's use has_promisor_remote()
and promisor_remote_get_direct().
This way all the configured promisor remotes will be taken
into account, not only the one specified by
extensions.partialClone.
I will at least add something telling that in most cases
"repository_format_partial_clone" and fetch_objects() shouldn't be
used directly anymore.
> > @@ -6506,8 +6507,7 @@ void diffcore_std(struct diff_options *options)
> > /*
> > * NEEDSWORK: Consider deduplicating the OIDs sent.
> > */
> > - fetch_objects(repository_format_partial_clone,
> > - to_fetch.oid, to_fetch.nr);
> > + promisor_remote_get_direct(to_fetch.oid, to_fetch.nr);
>
> Likewise between fetch_objects() and promisor_remote_get_direct().
> Shouldn't the underlying fetch_objects be hidden from general
> callers?
I will see if I can do that, though it has to be used in promisor-remote.c.
