Re: Proposal for missing blob support in Git repos

> Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> writes:
>
>> I see the semantics as "don't write what you already have", where
>> "have" means what you have in local storage, but if you extend "have"
>> to what upstream has, then yes, you're right that this changes
>> (ignoring shallow clones).
>>
>> This does remove a resistance that we have against hash collision (in
>> that normally we would have the correct object for a given hash and
>> can resist other servers trying to introduce a wrong object, but now
>> that is no longer the case), but I think it's better than consulting
>> the hook whenever you want to write anything (which is also a change
>> in semantics in that you're consulting an external source whenever
>> you're writing an object, besides the performance implications).
>
> As long as the above pros-and-cons analysis is understood and we are
> striking a balance between performance and strictness with such an
> understanding of the implications, I am perfectly fine with the
> proposal.  That is why my comment has never been "I think that is
> wrong" but consistently was "I wonder if that is a good thing."
>
> Thanks.