Re: [PATCH 0/2] Support for packs in HTTP

From: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
Date: Jul 11, 2005, 04:07 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0507102337160.30848-100000@iabervon.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0507102034460.17536@g5.osdl.org>

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> > 
> > Perhaps git-pack-objects should have the base as a optional argument,
> > with a default of the filename in $GIT_DIR/objects/pack and an option
> > for sending just the pack file to stdout?
> 
> You really _mustn't_ try to create the pack directly to the
> $GIT_DIR/objects/pack subdirectory - that would make git itself start
> possibly using that pack before the index is all done, and that would be
> just wrong and nasty.
>
> So you really should _always_ generate the pack somewhere else, and then 
> move it (pack file first, index file second).

It's currently fine ignoring index files without corresponding pack files (sha1_file.c, line 470). Do you want to make the constraint that the pack/ directory doesn't have index files for packs that aren't also there? (I've been putting the index files for packs that might be possibile to get there, and relying on the above check to make sure that they don't affect anything if it hasn't fetched the pack.)

Of course, we should never write to files in locations that anything looks at; we want everything to appear atomically, completely written and verified. But there's nothing wrong with having the C code place the objects, which is certainly going to be necessary in the case of downloading them by HTTP, since the program will want to place them and enable them while running.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*