From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Barkalow Subject: Re: metastore Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:42:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <20070915132632.GA31610@piper.oerlikon.madduck.net> <20070915145437.GA12875@piper.oerlikon.madduck.net> <7vwsur590q.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7v7imq5ki0.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vk5qq3y76.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7v7imp539u.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: david@lang.hm, Johannes Schindelin , martin f krafft , git@vger.kernel.org, "Thomas Harning Jr." , Francis Moreau , Nicolas Vilz , David =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=A4rdeman?= To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Sep 17 19:43:26 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IXKbu-0000WY-Vw for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:42:15 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751072AbXIQRmK (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:42:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752542AbXIQRmJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:42:09 -0400 Received: from iabervon.org ([66.92.72.58]:41121 "EHLO iabervon.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751072AbXIQRmI (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:42:08 -0400 Received: (qmail 27297 invoked by uid 1000); 17 Sep 2007 17:42:06 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 Sep 2007 17:42:06 -0000 In-Reply-To: <7v7imp539u.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > david@lang.hm writes: > > >> Post-checkout trigger is something I can say I can live with > >> without looking at the actual patch, but that does not mean it > >> would be a better approach at all. > > > > we agree on this much at least :-) > > > >> I would not be able to answer the first question right now; that > >> needs a patch to prove that it can be done with a well contained > >> set of changes that results in a maintainable code. > > > > you cannot answer the question in the affirmitive, but you could say > > that any changes in that area would be completely unacceptable to you > > (and for a while it sounded like you were saying exactly that). in > > which case any effort put into preparing patches would be a waste of > > time > > I tend to disagree. It's far from a waste of time. While, as I > said, I am skeptical that such a patch would be small impact, if > it helps people's needs, somebody will pick it up and carry > forward, even if that somebody is not me. It can then mature > out of tree and later could be merged. We simply do not know > unless somebody tries. And I am quite happy that you seem to be > motivated enough to see how it goes. There's certainly the possibility that a changeset could consist of some patches that make the index/filesystem handling more clear, some patches that make the tree/index handling more clear, and some patches that allow a hook to replace one of these entirely. Things can be a lot more acceptable if the intrusive changes are improvements for the maintainability of the normal case, and the special case code is no longer intrusive at all. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank*