On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:49 PM, Duy Nguyen <pclo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 05:22:15PM -0800, Stefan Beller wrote:
>> This is a real take on the first part of the recent RFC[1].
>> ...
>> Duy suggested that we shall not use the repository blindly, but
>> should carefully examine whether to pass on an object store or the
>> refstore or such[4], which I agree with if it makes sense. This
>> series unfortunately has an issue with that as I would not want to
>> pass down the `ignore_env` flag separately from the object store, so
>> I made all functions that only take the object store to have the raw
>> object store as the first parameter, and others using the full
>> repository.
> Second proposal :) How about you store ignore_env in raw_object_store?
> This would not be the first time an object has some configuration
> passed in at construction time. And it has a "constructor" now,
> raw_object_store_init() (I probably should merge _setup in it too)

A bit more on this configuration parameters. Down the road I think we
need something like this anyway to delete global config vars like
packed_git_window_size, delta_base_cache_limit...  Either all these
end up in raw_object_store, or raw_object_store holds a link to
"struct config_set".

The ignore_env specifically though looks to me like a stop gap
solution until everything goes through repo_init() first. At that
point we don't have to delay getenv() anymore. We can getenv() all at
repo_init() then pass them in raw_object_store and ignore_env should
be gone. So sticking it inside raw_object_store _temporarily_ does not
sound so bad.

Reply via email to