Re: [WIP/RFC 00/23] repository object

2017-05-30 Thread Brandon Williams
On 05/29, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason > wrote: > >>> That said, even if we never reached the point where we could handle all > >>> submodule requests in-process, I think sticking the repo-related global > >>> state in a struct certainly could not hu

Re: [WIP/RFC 00/23] repository object

2017-05-29 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >>> That said, even if we never reached the point where we could handle all >>> submodule requests in-process, I think sticking the repo-related global >>> state in a struct certainly could not hurt general readability. So it's >>> a

Re: [WIP/RFC 00/23] repository object

2017-05-29 Thread Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Jeff King wrote: >> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 04:21:11PM -0700, Brandon Williams wrote: >> >>> When I first started working on the git project I found it very difficult to >>> understand parts of the code base be

Re: [WIP/RFC 00/23] repository object

2017-05-29 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 04:21:11PM -0700, Brandon Williams wrote: > >> When I first started working on the git project I found it very difficult to >> understand parts of the code base because of the inherently global nature of >> our code. It a

Re: [WIP/RFC 00/23] repository object

2017-05-23 Thread Junio C Hamano
Brandon Williams writes: > On 05/22, Jeff King wrote: >> That said, even if we never reached the point where we could handle all >> submodule requests in-process, I think sticking the repo-related global >> state in a struct certainly could not hurt general readability. So it's >> a good directio

Re: [WIP/RFC 00/23] repository object

2017-05-23 Thread Brandon Williams
On 05/19, Ben Peart wrote: > Glad to see you tackling this. This is definitely a step in the > right direction. > > I realize that it will take a lot of work and that intermediate > steps may just be pushing it the global state one level higher but > eventually it would be great to see an entire

Re: [WIP/RFC 00/23] repository object

2017-05-23 Thread Brandon Williams
On 05/22, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 04:21:11PM -0700, Brandon Williams wrote: > > > When I first started working on the git project I found it very difficult to > > understand parts of the code base because of the inherently global nature of > > our code. It also made working on

Re: [WIP/RFC 00/23] repository object

2017-05-22 Thread Jeff King
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 04:21:11PM -0700, Brandon Williams wrote: > When I first started working on the git project I found it very difficult to > understand parts of the code base because of the inherently global nature of > our code. It also made working on submodules very difficult. Since we

Re: [WIP/RFC 00/23] repository object

2017-05-22 Thread Johannes Schindelin
Hi Stefan, On Sat, 20 May 2017, Stefan Beller wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Brandon Williams wrote: > > > This is still very much in a WIP state, though it does pass all tests. What > > I'm hoping for here is to get a discussion started about the feasibility of > > a > > change li

Re: [WIP/RFC 00/23] repository object

2017-05-21 Thread brian m. carlson
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 04:21:11PM -0700, Brandon Williams wrote: > This is still very much in a WIP state, though it does pass all tests. What > I'm hoping for here is to get a discussion started about the feasibility of a > change like this and hopefully to get the ball rolling. Is this a direc

Re: [WIP/RFC 00/23] repository object

2017-05-21 Thread Jacob Keller
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Brandon Williams wrote: > This is still very much in a WIP state, though it does pass all tests. What > I'm hoping for here is to get a discussion started about the feasibility of a > change like this and hopefully to get the ball rolling. Is this a direction >

Re: [WIP/RFC 00/23] repository object

2017-05-20 Thread Stefan Beller
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Brandon Williams wrote: > This is still very much in a WIP state, though it does pass all tests. What > I'm hoping for here is to get a discussion started about the feasibility of a > change like this and hopefully to get the ball rolling. Is this a direction >

Re: [WIP/RFC 00/23] repository object

2017-05-19 Thread Ben Peart
Glad to see you tackling this. This is definitely a step in the right direction. I realize that it will take a lot of work and that intermediate steps may just be pushing it the global state one level higher but eventually it would be great to see an entire code path global state free! I'm

Re: [WIP/RFC 00/23] repository object

2017-05-19 Thread Jeff Hostetler
On 5/18/2017 7:21 PM, Brandon Williams wrote: When I first started working on the git project I found it very difficult to understand parts of the code base because of the inherently global nature of our code. It also made working on submodules very difficult. Since we can only open up a sing

[WIP/RFC 00/23] repository object

2017-05-18 Thread Brandon Williams
When I first started working on the git project I found it very difficult to understand parts of the code base because of the inherently global nature of our code. It also made working on submodules very difficult. Since we can only open up a single repository per process, you need to launch a ch