Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: >> > then I'd be all for having the path-walk API, even if it doesn't help us >> > with repo size reductions as we initially thought. >> >> Is the implied statement that we didn't quite see sufficient rationale >> to convince ourselves that a new path-walk machinery is needed? > > No, it's rather that I didn't find the time yet to have a deeper look at > the patch series to figure out for myself whether the path-walk API is > needed for them. So I was trying to prompt Derrick with the above to > find out whether he thinks that it is needed for both of these features > and if so why the existing APIs are insufficient. > > I'm already sold on the idea of git-survey(1) and git-backfill(1), so if > there are two use cases where the API makes sense I'm happy to have the > additional complexity even if it's not needed anymore for the repo size > reduction. Ah, I misspoke and failed to add "in order to implement these new features" after "is needed". I like the idea of "backfill" thing, too (as code paths to deal with promisor remotes irritates me ;-). Thanks.
