Re: What's cooking in git.git (May 2013, #05; Mon, 20)

> Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
> 
>> Didn't you have concerns about storing the context in the object struct?
>> I can't quite judge how much of an issue this can be for fsck and such.
>> I don't want to increase the memory footprint unnecessarily, of course.
> 
> Yes. I thought I had a weather-balloon patch to fsck to use its own
> so that we have something to fall back on if it turns out to be a
> problem (and also so that anybody can see how big the difference is),
> but I highly suspect that any user of object-array other than what
> you are changing in the series wants to use the slim variant, which
> suggests that the information does not belong there.
> 
>> Other than that, the mechanism was still up for discussion (separate
>> "show" attribute or a config) given that the default behavior for
>> showing blobs is not to change.
> 
> My understanding was that the series as-is (not the implementation
> but the external interface) makes us honor what the user tells us
> better, without changing the behaviour for people who don't instruct
> us to do anything differently, so I thought it was a good place to
> stop at.
> 
> The 'show attribute or config' discussion would/should involve the
> possibility of flipping the default, no?  After all, I was getting
> the impression, especially from the "config", that this was "If we
> had known better when we introduced textconv, we would have defined
> it to apply in any situation where you would want a textual form of
> a blob, not limited to diff" kind of thing.
> 
> That is a much longer term thing and my impression was that it can
> built later on top of the series (once its implementation settles).
> 
> So, yes, thanks for pointing out these two points. The bloat in the
> object array element I do care today, the feature and the interface
> I do not think we have to worry about them today to hold the series
> back.