From: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 19:01:40 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/32] repository object
Message-ID: <20170612120140.3da90194@twelve2.svl.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20170610060712.foqre5fscaxu3tnx@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 02:07:12 -0400
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:

> I do agree that "pass just what the sub-function needs" is a good rule
> of thumb. But the reason that these are globals in the first place is
> that there are a ton of them, and they are used at the lowest levels of
> call chains. So I have a feeling that we're always going to need some
> big object to hold all that context when doing multi-repo operations in
> a single process.

From my experience with the codebase, it seems that most of these config
variables are static (file-local). This means that the lowest levels of
call chains could probably get away with storing per-repo configs in a
static hashmap or associative array keyed by repo (if they cannot just
pass the config around).

Having said that, if it did come to the hashmap, I probably would prefer
just putting the config in the repo object too. So maybe that is the way
to go.