Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 02:48:31PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> > Avoid all of those future complications by limiting index_bulk_checkin >> > to only work on blobs. >> >> Thanks. Will queue. > > Hmm. I wonder if retaining some flexibility in the bulk-checkin > mechanism may be worthwhile. We discussed at the Contributor's > Summit[^1] today that the bulk-checkin system may be a good fit for > packing any blobs/trees created by `merge-tree` or `replay` instead of > writing them out as loose objects. > > Being able to write trees in addition to blobs is definitely important > there, so we may want to wait on merging this down until that direction > solidifies a bit more. (FWIW, I started working on that today and hope > to have patches on the list in the next day or two). > > Alternatively, if there is an urgency to merge these down, we can always > come back to it in the future and revert it if need be. Either way > :-). There are two things that index_bulk_checkin does. - Handle objects that are too large to fit into a memory - Place objects immediately in a pack. Do I read things correctly that you want to take an object that is small enough to fit into memory, and to immediately into a pack? If so you essentially want write_object_file that directly writes to a pack? A version of write_object_file that that directly writes to a pack is much easier than the chunking that index_bulk_checkin does. Perhaps your version could be called index_pack_checkin? Eric
