On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes: > >> The step to take an object store would just add expressiveness >> to the code, which may help in understanding what part of the code is >> related to what other part of the code, so it may be a readability gain >> on its own? > > It certainly would allow you to have a standalone object store that > is not associated with *any* repository, but if we are not using > such a layout, I doubt it would be a readability gain to add excess > and unexercised expressiveness to the code.
So you favor v1? Duy seems to be ok with v1 too if there is consensus that it is best (or rather "if it makes Stefan's life hell, it's not worth doing.")[1]. I will try to resend that v1 shortly[2], as the only actual concern about the code was where one struct was defined[3]. All other discussion was meta-level, which direction to go. Thanks for the clarification! Stefan [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/cacsjy8cpkese8atc_ewdnvknqyp9t6ebwkwcdzlhyafkh2b...@mail.gmail.com/ [2] https://public-inbox.org/git/20180213012241.187007-1-sbel...@google.com/ [3] https://public-inbox.org/git/20180213185120.ga108...@google.com/
