On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
>> This is a real take on the first part of the recent RFC[1].
>
> For the patches remaining in this series, The scope is about right
> and the size is more manageable.
ok, thanks.
> With topics already on 'maste
Stefan Beller writes:
> This is a real take on the first part of the recent RFC[1].
For the patches remaining in this series, The scope is about right
and the size is more manageable. With topics already on 'master',
they have some interactions:
- ot/mru-on-list & gs/retire-mru
The packed
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 2:26 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> 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
Stefan Beller writes:
> Which is why I'd strongly consider having it only in the repository
> object as that is the largest-scoped thing we'd want. e.g. submodules
> should care about environment variables differently:
>
> GIT_WORK_TREE=~/mysuperproject git checkout \
> --recurse-
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
>> For now the ignore_env bit lives in the repository, as that helps
>> when working with submodules, when reading its comments.
>> Unfortunately 359efeffc1 (repository: introduce the repository
>> object, 2017-06-2
Stefan Beller writes:
> For now the ignore_env bit lives in the repository, as that helps
> when working with submodules, when reading its comments.
> Unfortunately 359efeffc1 (repository: introduce the repository
> object, 2017-06-22) did not reason about the existence of the ignore_env
> flag i
On 02/12, Stefan Beller wrote:
> This is a real take on the first part of the recent RFC[1].
>
> Jonathan Tan suggested[2] that "sha1_loose_object_info to handle arbitrary
> repositories"
> might be a good breaking point for a first part at that RFC at patch 38.
> This series is smaller and conta
Hi,
Stefan Beller wrote:
> This is a real take on the first part of the recent RFC[1].
>
> Jonathan Tan suggested[2] that "sha1_loose_object_info to handle arbitrary
> repositories"
> might be a good breaking point for a first part at that RFC at patch 38.
> This series is smaller and contains o
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
>> Oh, that is an interesting perspective. Here is how I arrived at the opposite
>> conclusion initially: Searching for 'ignore_env' shows that we care about it
>> as well for the index and graft paths, which are no
Stefan Beller writes:
> Oh, that is an interesting perspective. Here is how I arrived at the opposite
> conclusion initially: Searching for 'ignore_env' shows that we care about it
> as well for the index and graft paths, which are not the object store, hence
> it would be better kept in the repo
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 4:13 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:49 PM, Duy Nguyen 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 rep
On 02/13, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:49 PM, Duy Nguyen 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, b
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:49 PM, Duy Nguyen 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
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
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
> I developed this series [...] on top of current master.
also available at https://github.com/stefanbeller/git/tree/object-store-part1
This is a real take on the first part of the recent RFC[1].
Jonathan Tan suggested[2] that "sha1_loose_object_info to handle arbitrary
repositories"
might be a good breaking point for a first part at that RFC at patch 38.
This series is smaller and contains only 26 patches as the patches in the b
16 matches
Mail list logo