On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 5:41 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > I posted an alternative in response to Elijah; the general idea being to > > allow the usual object-lookup code to access the in-progress pack. That > > would keep us limited to a single pack. > > If such a mechanism is done in a generic way, would we be able to > simplify fast-import a lot, I wonder? IIRC, it had quite a lot of > code to remember what it has written to its output to work around > the exact issue your alternative tries to solve. In fact, maybe we > could make fast-import a thin wrapper around the bulk checkin > infrastructure? fast-import also attempts to delta objects against previous ones as it writes them to the pack. That's one thing still lacking from this solution, but aside from that, it also sounds to me like the bulk checkin infrastructure is getting closer to becoming a replacement for much of the fast-import code.
