On 11/18/2014 09:30 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Michael Haggerty <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> I'm still not convinced. For me, "reflog_expire()" is an unusual outlier
>> operation, much like "git gc" or "git pack-refs" or "git fsck". None of
>> these are part of the beautiful Git data model; they are messy
>> maintenance operations. Forcing reference transactions to be general
>> enough to allow reflog expiration to be implemented *outside* the refs
>> API sacrificies their simplicity for lots of infrastructure that will
>> probably only be used to implement this single operation. Better to
>> implement reflog expiration *inside* the refs API.
>
> Sorry, but I lost track---which one is inside and which one is
> outside?
By "inside" I mean the code that would be within the reference-handling
library if we had such a thing; i.e., implemented in refs.c. By
"outside" I mean in the code that calls the library; in this case the
"outside" code would live in builtin/reflog.c.
In other words, I'd prefer the "outside" code in builtin/reflog.c to
look vaguely like
expire_reflogs_for_me_please(refname,
should_expire_cb, cbdata, flags)
rather than
transaction = ...
for_each_reflog_entry {
if should_expire()
adjust neighbor reflog entries if necessary (actually,
they're transaction entries so we would have to
preprocess them before putting them in the
transaction)
else
add reflog entry to transaction
}
ref_transaction_commit()
and instead handle as much of the iteration, bookkeeping, and rewriting
as possible inside expire_reflogs_for_me_please().
Michael
--
Michael Haggerty
[email protected]
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
