Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] Git remote helpers to implement smart transports.

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi> writes:

> On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 10:35:58PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi> writes:
>> 
>> I didn't mean the line count by "large".  I was referring to the size of
>> change at the conceptual level.  As Daniel already explained, it has been
>> one of the design assumption so far that there are built-in mappings from
>> some common <scheme>:// to backend "helpers".
>
> No implicit mappings from <scheme>:// to helpers existed before this series
> (except for forcing in URL, which are different). Thus, any mapping had to
> be explicit and built-in.
> ...
> So instead of mapping explicitly, those are effectively mapped by filesystem
> (that's after the fixes for next round that make helpers hardlinked instead
> of copied).

Sure, it may be a good change; didn't I say that in the part you omitted
from your quote?  But it is conceptually a big change nevertheless, and it
is to be debated --- that makes the parts leading to 6/8 rather a large
change, which was my primary point in the message you are responding to,
so I think we are in agreement that it would have been nicer if the other
bits that are independently useful (like the debug one) were earlier in
the series.

The other minor point in my message was that this is to be debated (which
I think you are doing now), but I am not the best person to debate the
design of this part with.  Daniel and Shawn are the guys who have
primarily worked on the helper interface and relationship between the
helpers and the transport layer, and will have much better insights.

By the way, are you the helpful git expert we often see on #git IRC
channel who goes by the same name?  Welcome to the list; I don't remember
seeing you here, and let me thank you for having helped many new to
intermediate git users over there for a long time.