On Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 11:06:49AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > We could instead redefine the semantics of the existing alternates > mechanism. This technically *breaks* backward compatibility, but I > suspect it won't hurt many existing installations: > > - Declare that a freestanding object store is illegal. In other words, > if a directory "$D/objects" is (1) used as $GIT_OBJECT_DIRECTORY's > value, (2) pointed by some repository's "alternates" file, or (3) > listed in $GIT_ALTERNATE_OBJECT_DIRECTORIES's value, this change makes > it illegal for "$D" not being a proper git repository. > > This will not break your example of your repository's object store > borrowing from the object store inside Linus's repository. > > - When you have "$D/objects" in alternates, start relying on "$D/refs" > being correct (i.e. repository $D is not corrupt). This technically > makes the system slightly less robust, as we are depending on _other > people's_ good behaviour even more when you use alternates, but you are > already depending on them having good objects in $D/objects anyway, so > it is not a big deal. One way that wouldn't break backwards compatibility would be to use $D/refs if it exists, but if it isn't, fall back to existing behavior (which is to say, only use the refs in the repository, not in the borrowed repository/object store). Is there a reason why this would be problematic? - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
