> -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Hostetler <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 10:36 AM > To: Eric DeCosta <edecosta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Junio C Hamano > <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Eric DeCosta via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx>; > git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Torsten > Bögershausen <tboegi@xxxxxx>; Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason > <avarab@xxxxxxxxx>; Ramsay Jones <ramsay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/6] fsmonitor: relocate socket file if .git directory is > remote > > > > On 9/19/22 7:51 PM, Eric DeCosta wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 1:49 PM > >> To: Jeff Hostetler <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Eric DeCosta via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx>; > >> git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Torsten > >> Bögershausen <tboegi@xxxxxx>; Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason > >> <avarab@xxxxxxxxx>; Ramsay Jones <ramsay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; > >> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx>; Eric DeCosta > >> <edecosta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/6] fsmonitor: relocate socket file if .git > >> directory is remote > >> > >> Jeff Hostetler <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >>> Aren't we in the middle of a transition from always using the global > >>> "the_repository" to a passed "r" variable? > >>> We're getting closer to being able to hide the the global symbol, > >>> but we're not there yet, right? > >> > >> We may still have code that works ONLY on the_repository, but letting > >> a function take "r" and lettin it ignore is worse than leaving it > >> explicitly limited to the_repository only, no? > >> > >>> I'm thinking that at as long as the global exists, we are not safe > >>> to have multiple "struct repository" instances, right? > >> > >> By itself, Not at all. It is the code like I am criticizing that makes it unsafe. > >> > >> I do not mind adding > >> > >> if (!r) > >> BUG(...); > >> > >> at the place you have the "sweep it under the rug" band-aid, though. > > > > Appreciate all the insights and comments. Where are we landing with this? > Very close to the finish line and I'd like to be able to push these changes over > that line. > > > > -Eric > > > > I'm OK doing it either way. Junio seems to prefer the BUG() version, so let's > go with that. That lets us make progress on getting rid of direct references to > "the_repository". > > Jeff Sounds like a plan! -Eric
