Re: [PATCH 00/22] cache cursors: an introduction
- From
Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
- Date
- Sep 12, 2005, 20:22 UTC
- Message-ID
- <Pine.LNX.4.63.0509121614140.23242@iabervon.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vaciiawrm.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 20 quoted lines
> I've only skimmed the surface of your patchset and cannot > comment on the correctness of all the conversion of active_cache > users; today is my day-job day not a GIT day. > > I have to say you did quite a lot of work, and I am pleasantly > surprised to see the massive clean-up this change brings us. It > seems like this makes the active_cache users a lot easier to > read. > > I have a couple of comments on the API, though. > > * Doesn't function to be applied usually want to have its own > data when passed to walk, maybe something like this? > > This was a question I had when I read [PATCH 01/22] before > reading the rest of the patches, but the actual conversion > does not seem to find much need for it. A new global variable > pathspec is introduced to pass information the API is unable > to pass to diff_one() in diff-index.c, which may be a sign > that an extra "user data" parameter might help. Your call.
I agree that it only works for the current conversion, due to there only being a limited amount you might try to do in a single git executable currently. Long-term, that should be fixed.
Show 8 quoted lines
> * It may make sense to give another param to describe which > cache the caller is talking about so that we can later have > more than one cache at the same time: > > We could argue that this should be left for later rounds. On > the other hand, we will be changing all the cc_* function call > sites during that round, which is by definition the places you > are touching in this round anyway.
Wouldn't it be better to only take it in cc_init(), and have the cursor remember what it's iterating through?
I'm actually particularly interested in having a pair of caches for read-tree, because it would actually like to keep the old index separate from the index it's building.
-Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank*