Re: Yet another base64 patch

From: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
Date: Apr 17, 2005, 14:30 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0504171018410.30848-100000@iabervon.org>
In-Reply-To: <20050416210513.1ba26967.pj@sgi.com>

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Paul Jackson wrote:

> David wrote:
> > It's a trade-off, I know.
> 
> So where do you recommend we make that trade-off?

So why do we have to be consistant? It seems like we need a standard format for these reasons:

 - We use rsync to interact with remote repositories, and rsync won't
   understand if they aren't organized the same way. But I'm working on
   having everything go through git-specific code, which could understand
   different layouts.

 - Everything that shares a local repository needs to understand the
   format of that repository. But the filesystem constraints on the local
   repository will be the same regardless of who is looking, so they'd all
   expect the same format anyway.

So my idea is, once we're using git-smart transfer code (which can verify objects, etc.), add support for different implementations of sha1_file_name suitable for different filesystems, and vary based either on a compile-time option or on a setting stored in the objects directory. The only thing that matters is that repositories on non-special web servers have a standard format, because they'll be serving objects by URL, not by sha1.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*