Re: [PATCHv3] ref namespaces: tests

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jul 22, 2011, 22:32 UTC
Message-ID: <20110722223211.GA19620@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7v62mux9ae.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 02:56:16PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> writes:
> 
> > At this point I think we've incorporated all the outstanding feedback.
> > Does this test need any further changes to allow the ref-namespaces
> > branch to graduate to next?
> 
> No more nitpicks from me on this patch at least for now.
> 
> Are people who expressed concern during the review on the previous round
> of the series happy with the second round? I recall there was a strong
> sentiment that it is regrettable that the series specifically changes
> fetch and push and is not a more general mechanism. Personally I am OK
> with the approach taken by this series, as I do not offhand think of other
> ways to serve a modified namespace. You have to view the unaltered reality
> when interacting with your own refs to enumerate the objects you have,
> while giving the altered view to your clients that is limited to the
> "virtual" space.

I was one of the people who wanted to have namespaces or virtual repos at a more fundamental level. However, I tried to do a relatively simple patch when the discussion started, and ended up getting mired in corner cases. And it sounds like Josh and Jamey made a good faith effort in that direction, but still ended up where they are now. So I'm willing to accept that it is not as simple as we hoped, and the more practical approach from their series is acceptable.

As for the code itself, I admit I haven't been paying all that close attention. I can try to give a more careful review if we want another set of eyes.

-Peff