Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add keyword unexpansion support to convert.c

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Apr 18, 2007, 05:04 UTC
Message-ID: <7vlkgqjmsa.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0704172154160.4504@xanadu.home>

Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> writes:

Show 10 quoted lines

> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> You have to be careful, though.  Depending on what kind of
>> transformation you implement with the external tools, you would
>> end up having to slow down everything we would do.
>
> So what?  
>
> We provide a rope with proper caveat emptor.  Up to others to hang 
> themselves with it if they so desire.  It is not our problem anymore.

I sort-of find it hard to believe hearing this from somebody who muttered something about importance of perception a few days ago.

Show 8 quoted lines

>> I suspect that you would have to play safe and say "when
>> external tools are involved, we need to disable the existing
>> content SHA-1 based optimization for all paths that ask for
>> them" to keep your sanity.
>
> Maybe.  If that is what's really needed then so be it.  People who 
> really want to do strange things will have the flexibility to do so, but 
> they'll have to pay the price in loss of performance.

Not just that. We end up having to pay the price of maintaining hooks to let them do crazy things.