Re: [PATCH v3] bulk-checkin: only support blobs in index_bulk_checkin

From: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 27, 2023, 20:13 UTC
Message-ID: <87pm23idci.fsf@gmail.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
In-Reply-To: <ZROHrSmmZOIE6bl9@nand.local>

Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes:

Show 20 quoted lines

> On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 02:48:31PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> > Avoid all of those future complications by limiting index_bulk_checkin
>> > to only work on blobs.
>>
>> Thanks.  Will queue.
>
> Hmm. I wonder if retaining some flexibility in the bulk-checkin
> mechanism may be worthwhile. We discussed at the Contributor's
> Summit[^1] today that the bulk-checkin system may be a good fit for
> packing any blobs/trees created by `merge-tree` or `replay` instead of
> writing them out as loose objects.
>
> Being able to write trees in addition to blobs is definitely important
> there, so we may want to wait on merging this down until that direction
> solidifies a bit more. (FWIW, I started working on that today and hope
> to have patches on the list in the next day or two).
>
> Alternatively, if there is an urgency to merge these down, we can always
> come back to it in the future and revert it if need be. Either way
> :-).

There are two things that index_bulk_checkin does.
- Handle objects that are too large to fit into a memory
- Place objects immediately in a pack.

Do I read things correctly that you want to take an object that is small enough to fit into memory, and to immediately into a pack?

If so you essentially want write_object_file that directly writes to a pack?

A version of write_object_file that that directly writes to a pack is much easier than the chunking that index_bulk_checkin does.

Perhaps your version could be called index_pack_checkin?

Eric