Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > I was thinking that Git itself could treat "ttl=0" specially, the same > as your nocache, and avoid passing it along to any helpers during the > approve stage. That would make it exactly equivalent to your patch > (modulo the name change). > ... > And as you noted above, if we don't suppress the helper calls inside > Git, then every matching storage helper needs to learn about "nocache" > (or "ttl") before it will do any good. I was waiting for this discussion to settle and then the discussion seems to have petered out. Any interest to following the "ttl with special casing value 0 as 'nocache'" idea thru from either two of you, or should I take the patch as is in the meantime? Thanks.
