Re: [PATCH 0/8] builtin-clone

From: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
Date: Apr 18, 2008, 00:50 UTC
Message-ID: <200804180250.48544.johan@herland.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.1.00.0804171923040.19665@iabervon.org>

On Friday 18 April 2008, Daniel Barkalow wrote:

> This is my latest version, rebased approximately on current master (or 
> recent maint, I guess). It's missing all of Johan's stuff, which is tests 
> for stuff I've fixed

Does this mean you no longer need the tests, or that you want me to resend?

> and (after this series) a series to make the clone generate packed refs.

I'll resend the series once your work has settled down and landed in "next".

BTW, I noticed in your repo (at iabervon.org) that you put "if (0)" around the code generating packed-refs (using the old one instead), and added the following note to the commit message:

  I made this compile-time configurable because I'm not sure we want to
  pack unconditionally.

We should probably figure out the right thing to do here. AFAICS, compile-time configurability is only a temporary measure, and we basically have to choose between:

1. Add a command-line option (and config variable?) for controlling
   whether "git clone" generates packed refs.

2. Make "git clone" unconditionally generate packed refs.

Currently, I'm leaning towards (2), since I don't think there's enough drawbacks with generating packed-refs to justify adding a command-line option. AFAICS, the only drawback is that reflogs aren't created/initialized on clone, but I got the feeling that this was not particularly important. Quoting Junio from an earlier thread:

  Not writing reflogs is a _different_ behaviour from the previous, but I
  suspect it might even be an improvement.  When you have 1000 remote
  branches, probably most of them are not even active.

If there are good arguments for going with (1), I'd love to hear them.

Have fun, and thanks a lot for your hard work!

...Johan

-- 
Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net>
www.herland.net