Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] An attempt to move packfile funcs to its own file

2017-08-08 Thread Junio C Hamano
Jonathan Tan writes: > What do you mean by "keep the exposed surface area small enough"? If you > mean the total number of exposed functions in sha1_file and pack (once > everything is done), I think it will be almost the same as that > currently in sha1_file. > ... > During this patch set, there

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] An attempt to move packfile funcs to its own file

2017-08-08 Thread Jonathan Tan
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 13:05:05 -0700 Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jonathan Tan writes: > > > While investigating annotating packfiles and loose objects to support > > connectivity checks in partial clones [1], I decided to make the effort > > to separate packfile-related code from sha1_file.c into its

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] An attempt to move packfile funcs to its own file

2017-08-08 Thread Junio C Hamano
Jonathan Tan writes: > While investigating annotating packfiles and loose objects to support > connectivity checks in partial clones [1], I decided to make the effort > to separate packfile-related code from sha1_file.c into its own file, to > make it easier to both code such changes and review t