Re: [PATCH 0/5] Start of a journey: drop NO_THE_INDEX_COMPATIBILITY_MACROS

[Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com>]

On 05/05, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi Stefan & Junio,
> 
> On Thu, 4 May 2017, Stefan Beller wrote:
> 
> > So instead of a mechanical replacement, we'd rather want to
> > see "the_index" not appearing at all outside of builtins, which
> > implies two things:
> >
> > * If done properly we can move the macros from cache.h to
> >   e.g. builtin.h. That way future developers are less tempted
> >   to use the cache_* macros in the library code.
> 
> Yessss!
> 
> > * we'd have to pass through the_index from the builtin function
> >   down to the library code, potentially going through multiple
> >   function. For this it is unclear if we want to start this now, or wait
> >   until Brandon presents his initial repository object struct, which
> >   may be suited better for passing-around.
> 
> Or the other way round. I guess passing a struct index_state can be a
> first step, and we can later convert it to struct repository. I fathom
> that more places will need a struct repository parameter than a struct
> index_state parameter. That is, if you first identify all the places where
> the index_state parameter is required, it should make the struct
> repository change easier.

Exactly this.  I have a local series which converts ls-files to use a
repository struct but it turns out, for that to work, dir.c needs to be
converted to take in an index_state struct for fill_directory().  So I
then started working on doing that conversion and hopefully will have
something clean enough to send out later today for people to comment on.

-- 
Brandon Williams