From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-b7-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-b7-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.158]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91528B65C for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2025 06:42:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.158 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748846556; cv=none; b=CFQT1bLwzH7nVnWalMczgOdGzd/Q8i9pDBAOzVbJmqeSHM1dRJjZFQf5aYVSqDK1aic9chLp4r51D+NSDVuI/pv+JRcEn5JCO1jOuggmpOwDGvCtS3H+TorpKoQHKrSbEUaHuGgbSJUFPNYcFC6ni6C3NGuj2JaRv62Uu/083nA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748846556; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KPI7BENcJQQKe3uBrz/qaykQ6lJVVdR1d0ZBVMJlf4c=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=qDNWxrpJSyaODVrFfQUsCxfiNNO9XiiqHZS1ev8L1RIXYg8DLvLV1p7H+vRfFElKj8JwYvlZFpccC8GrjCv2YweS8QYVDEqxyMXpvzf3GbepzXI4kLAqCTsdbiMBh/1O1x6E3Yp368x8Bc5gqC8RjVyfUzhdXt+kJ1sQeBkA78E= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b=Jbgb0XLx; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=Tjo1/DOW; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.158 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b="Jbgb0XLx"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="Tjo1/DOW" Received: from phl-compute-03.internal (phl-compute-03.phl.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailfhigh.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A0DE25400DC; Mon, 2 Jun 2025 02:42:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-mailfrontend-01 ([10.202.2.162]) by phl-compute-03.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 02 Jun 2025 02:42:33 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pks.im; h=cc:cc :content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1748846553; x=1748932953; bh=B5EGe7a2zQ MO3Yv0rNf1vA2xr60+xXHJfJEi1Uqpaeg=; b=Jbgb0XLxvV4e96629v0+cqNM8F WFuGw/DVR2j2t12aFFOs/5n0UlL7C3u8WiYLg68FeklTlLT4xTbhoaUPOgXGtxZN ndDIwNEUGg7YyMOtBjDRmAlsdGGg/UOzec0s56K6ikvWcOvUctzLcGKpSXn3fQDX /7/hfthbdH5FrE5mI/LzYsomsHHoOI2RlQqdQ9h0nR8eIWcrEX9HwxrOhEkfo6Dv FV16/dTF9m3oRXgJWOHujDmZ/fJrp+ruc1wjEcaN9P966FX9OxKfmL9t4ADo2Euv IUWkXjAFpIFbqml7cWDJwPvbl26adPYIaodI8WItEpuIZDG4AGyOsh1NJBdA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t= 1748846553; x=1748932953; bh=B5EGe7a2zQMO3Yv0rNf1vA2xr60+xXHJfJE i1Uqpaeg=; b=Tjo1/DOW2iosnWbG9FUwhwANjqv4grcXj/sIkCCwJoSkbFrddDg +GyUHbE6i6HXGbWkdJG1vzQHVpDPD2zKwwXVXk7l1vCaidK7VP2qmALlprs49nrb +s/WZtepftpaAf5+Hrzbij9FRhkB6IFC6FC275HlK+qCHaJQXtwYaKGhAdi18j07 PJH/RSxlpcGiOFVHi548S+r6ncduZw9QYjSwCp5F4klwtU1W/2Kloaq5zfEoAXVB MNuM4YZThaOnUUcOPnvWSBNGg1eEhxQemHvvjpwd8COjkl+O1mAALtqfIs7jAJFM YE2CIKLlFROWYueRe5mJx8S4+mWYITMc5rA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtddtgdefieeljeculddtuddrgeefvddrtd dtmdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpggft fghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftd dtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpeffhffvvefukfhf gggtuggjsehttdertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefrrghtrhhitghkucfuthgvihhnhhgrrh guthcuoehpshesphhkshdrihhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeevkeekfffhiedtledu iefgjedttedvledvudehgfeugedugffhueekhfejvdektdenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiii gvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehpshesphhkshdrihhmpdhnsggprhgt phhtthhopeegpdhmohguvgepshhmthhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtsehvghgvrh drkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtgho mhdprhgtphhtthhopehmvgesthhtrgihlhhorhhrrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepjhhlth hosghlvghrsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i197146af:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 2 Jun 2025 02:42:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 99773df1 (TLSv1.3:TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256:256:NO); Mon, 2 Jun 2025 06:42:30 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 08:42:24 +0200 From: Patrick Steinhardt To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Justin Tobler , git@vger.kernel.org, Taylor Blau Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (May 2025, #07; Fri, 23) Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 09:28:13AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Patrick Steinhardt writes: > > > Yeah, I understand that confusion indeed. I don't think that the other > > proposals we've got are a lot better, either: > > > > - `odb_backend` was shot down because it may cause the association > > that one object database has one backend. But backends are per > > alternate, so there's a mismatch in expectations. > > I do not see where that association would come from, though. But I > agree with the other objection that the word "backend" is more about > implementation and less about an instance that is realized by that > implementation, i.e. two such components that runs the code for a > single backend may be part of a single object database. > > > - `odb_source` is better, but we now have the problem that we use > > "alternate" interchangably in most cases where we also use > > `odb_source`. This will likely lead to somewhat awkward interfaces. > > > > The problem with `odb_source` might eventually go away once we clearly > > distinguish the "alternates" concept from the low-level mechanism to > > access objects. But I'm just not certain at all whether it won't cause > > more confusion when in most cases "alternates" and "sources" can be used > > somewhat interchangably. > > > > I dunno. The more I think about this the more I start to like the > > `odb_source` name. > > Yeah, I do not mind calling the instantiation backed by a backend > implementation a odb_source. > > In any case, when deciding the terminology, we should look at what > we currently have in the glossary and imagine how they should look > like in the updated world. Currently, > > - "alternate object database" is described as inheriting the > entirety of another "object database" (we deliberately do not say > that this other object database belongs to another repository, as > a standalone object database is a valid option). > > - "object database" is described as what holds a set of "objects". > There is no complication here ;-) > > When treating the set of objects stored in $GIT_DIR/objects/??/ > directories (i.e. "loose objects") and the set of objects stored in > $GIT_DIR/objects/pack/ directory (i.e. "packed objects") as two > separate odb_something, with a vision that we may add different > implementations of such collection later, it would be very confusing > to call each of them "an alternate". "source" may not be ideal, but > it is the best among what we collectively have come up with, I think. Okay, let's settle on `odb_source` then. I'll send a new version once I have wrangled all the conflicts :) Thanks for the discussion, all! Patrick