Re: [WIP/RFC 00/23] repository object

From

Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>

Date

May 20, 2017, 21:37 UTC

Message-ID

<CAGZ79kbvhRzjbfiUNuc364tM8j1TpNEtGt6rtfG2h9Y=v4TVHw@mail.gmail.com>

In-Reply-To

<20170518232134.163059-1-bmwill@google.com>

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com> wrote:

> This is still very much in a WIP state, though it does pass all tests.  What
> I'm hoping for here is to get a discussion started about the feasibility of a
> change like this and hopefully to get the ball rolling.  Is this a direction we
> want to move in?  Is it worth the pain?

I would be really happy to see this series land eventually.

The introduction of a repo object will deliver performance at a higher
level, such as
* (remarked by Ben): enabling of threading
* submodules do not need to spawn processes
* I would imagine that developer velocity will go up by having less global state
  in the long run.