From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [RFC] deprecating and eventually removing "git relink"? Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:08:47 -0800 Message-ID: <7vmxbyicgg.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7v4ny7mtbx.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20111114103451.GA10847@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vfwhqjw4u.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20111114202522.GA26269@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Simon Brenner , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Nov 14 23:08:57 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQ4i0-0007qH-3P for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 23:08:56 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756334Ab1KNWIv (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:08:51 -0500 Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.35]:61117 "EHLO smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754268Ab1KNWIu (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:08:50 -0500 Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 833A96060; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:08:49 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=fvLHlAboAlmIaOV7rBE+/tRMCAA=; b=VW/qqY 8FJ9VlHJZOoPxl/3/OXVX3+NfJnXxTthXHGaf4F1DNgQlxuHo7IF+kkWX/qU12CM h2DJtKvjc8L4POLMoJqJFIIaZ17x4WIogVdXFh0EYJDXpP1KZSsxv5FJZEjdqZ4S d3LY6wlrZikzjODgFw8Yo1to1fLduP0vfrMbA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=IxrB7XK1F3gtnKELLgcjlG0g7DpV5fWV WF8uMfD1ET+EK/xVjzBGw54d6f9/UlM9vtpB8grM0Mn6ne53vp3eJxSQzR6NpVje Mnip9RaaIy7PPTIyLUmU/I0hkkIBZz95bINvFSWvo1jiSYJ2gsvlvi5HPDo7yyuE DobN//qwxN4= Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A714605F; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:08:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [76.102.170.102]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DAA07605D; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:08:48 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20111114202522.GA26269@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:25:22 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 3A8BE1C2-0F0D-11E1-96DA-9DB42E706CDE-77302942!b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King writes: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:18:25PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> > Yes, I think that is sensible. I'm not sure there is even any core git >> > code to be written. I think a wrapper that does the following would >> > probably work: >> >> I agree with your outline, which I find is in line with what I had in mind >> in the message Miles responded. >> >> The approach is different from what Miles alluded to, which is to have >> "clients" create objects in the "central" place in the first place, >> though. > > It seems to me that is simply an optimization that can come later. I did not mean "it is wrong because it does not match what Miles said" by that. In fact, I think it is a better approach to put things in clients first and consolidating possible duplicates at the central one purely as optimization, and I do not necessarily see "write to central from the beginning" as a particularly good "optimization".