From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add keyword unexpansion support to convert.c Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:04:37 -0700 Message-ID: <7vlkgqjmsa.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <200704171041.46176.andyparkins@gmail.com> <"200704171803.58940.a n dyparkins"@gmail.com> <200704172012.31280.andyparkins@gmail.com> <7vy7kqlj5r.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Lang , Andy Parkins , git@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds To: Nicolas Pitre X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Apr 18 07:04:43 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1He2LS-0001os-DV for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:04:42 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932212AbXDRFEj (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:04:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932280AbXDRFEj (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:04:39 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao107.cox.net ([68.230.241.39]:37041 "EHLO fed1rmmtao107.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932212AbXDRFEi (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:04:38 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao107.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.05.02.00 201-2174-114-20060621) with ESMTP id <20070418050438.SRIS1257.fed1rmmtao107.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:04:38 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id oV4d1W00C1kojtg0000000; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:04:37 -0400 User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Nicolas Pitre writes: > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> You have to be careful, though. Depending on what kind of >> transformation you implement with the external tools, you would >> end up having to slow down everything we would do. > > So what? > > We provide a rope with proper caveat emptor. Up to others to hang > themselves with it if they so desire. It is not our problem anymore. I sort-of find it hard to believe hearing this from somebody who muttered something about importance of perception a few days ago. >> I suspect that you would have to play safe and say "when >> external tools are involved, we need to disable the existing >> content SHA-1 based optimization for all paths that ask for >> them" to keep your sanity. > > Maybe. If that is what's really needed then so be it. People who > really want to do strange things will have the flexibility to do so, but > they'll have to pay the price in loss of performance. Not just that. We end up having to pay the price of maintaining hooks to let them do crazy things.