Re: [RFC] deprecating and eventually removing "git relink"?

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Nov 14, 2011, 20:18 UTC
Message-ID: <7vfwhqjw4u.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20111114103451.GA10847@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 15 quoted lines

> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 09:48:07AM +0100, Simon Brenner wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> wrote:
>> > It might be nice to have a mechanism where new objects would update
>> > the _alternate_ rather than the object-store in the tree where the
>> > command was run... then you could easily have a bunch of trees using a
>> > central object store without needing to update the central store
>> > occasionally by hand (and do gc in its "clients")...
>> 
>> This sounds like a nice way forward: replace/extend the current
>> alternates system ...
>
> Yes, I think that is sensible. I'm not sure there is even any core git
> code to be written. I think a wrapper that does the following would
> probably work:

I agree with your outline, which I find is in line with what I had in mind in the message Miles responded.

The approach is different from what Miles alluded to, which is to have "clients" create objects in the "central" place in the first place, though.