On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 07:27:01AM +0200, Lukas Fleischer wrote:

> > Sure, users working on smaller repos are free to reset core.abbrev to
> > its original value.  I don't have any numbers, of course, but I
> > suspect that there are many more smaller repos out there that this
> > change will affect disadvantageously, than there are large repos for
> > which it's beneficial.
> I know this suggestion comes a bit late but would it make sense to let
> the repository owner overwrite the core.abbrev setting?
> One possible way to implement this would be adding .gitconfig support to
> repositories with a very limited set of whitelisted variables allowed in
> there (could be core.abbrev only to begin with). Or some entirely
> separate mechanism like .gitignore.

The suggestion for versioned repository-level config comes up from time
to time; you can find other instances in the list archive. Usually the
biggest issue is that usually nobody comes up with a good example of
something that the project would actually want to set. Setting
"core.abbrev" at least seems plausible.


> With such a mechanism, we could keep the default of 7 which works fine
> for most projects. Linus could bump the default to 12 for linux.git. If
> some users are not happy with that, they can still overwrite it in their
> local Git config. Anybody starting a project could change the initial
> value to a suitable value in one of the first commits -- provided they
> already have an idea how much the project will grow. That way, hashes
> will be "long enough" even for early commits, before any heuristics
> could guess that the project would become large.

I wonder if in practice we would do just as well to size default_abbrev
dynamically based on the number of objects. That doesn't help projects
which are just starting, but will eventually grow gigantic.  But I doubt
that most projects would have the foresight to preemptively set
core.abbrev. And that would at least reduce the impact as the project
_does_ get big.


Reply via email to