On 2/22/2022 7:28 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi Elijah, > > On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Elijah Newren wrote: > >> On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 11:41 AM Derrick Stolee >> <derrickstolee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> The only concern here really is if we want to be picky about the "VFS >>> for Git" references instead of "vfsd" references in the commit >>> message. >> >> I'm not sure I'm understanding the distinction. Was "VFS for Git" >> renamed to "vfsd"? Is "vfsd" Google's modified version? Something >> else? > > VFS for Git is the existing project at > https://github.com/microsoft/VFSforGit which is pretty much in maintenance > mode. > > vfsd was mentioned by Jonathan Tan in > https://lore.kernel.org/git/20220207190320.2960362-1-jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx/. > From what I gather, it is a completely separate implementation of the same > ideas of VFS for Git, but from what I see it does not share any code with > it (and it is unclear how much vfsd tries/tried to learn from VFS for Git, > it looks like it's being done from scratch but that impression could be > incorrect). Elijah is correct that "vfsd" is not publicly visible outside of this message, so that makes it difficult for us to verify that these patches being made for it actually work as we intend. > Side note: VFS for Git itself requires the Microsoft fork of Git > to work, therefore this patch would only be needed in that fork, > as far as VFS for Git is concerned. I would drop this side note, since a big reason for the microsoft/git fork is so we can create custom patches that handle these issues. We would probably have created a similar patch during release integration, but we are grateful to use this patch as a base for making these integrations simpler in the future. Thanks, -Stolee
