Re: [RFC v3] cat-file: add a --stdin-cmd mode
- From
Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
- Date
- Feb 2, 2022, 01:45 UTC
- Message-ID
- <YfniNw/PoBeei+33@nand.local>
- In-Reply-To
- <3FE1D509-8AD0-4F0E-9298-DFD3552A98EF@gmail.com>
On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 08:34:06PM -0500, John Cai wrote:
Show 18 quoted lines
> > So maybe a signal isn't the way to go. But I don't think `--stdin-cmd` > > is the simplest approach either. At the very least, I don't totally > > understand your plan after implementing a flush command. You mention > > that it would be nice to implement other commands, but I'm not totally > > convinced by your examples[1]. > > I agree that if flush were the only use case for a new flag, it might not > be worth it. But, the flush command is only one of the use cases that a > --stdin-cmd (now changed to --batch-command per Phillip's suggestion) > > There are two other commands in this RFC > > object <rev> > info <rev> > > These are described in [1] that are also a motivation for a command > interface. > The description in [1] explains why a command interface would be necessary.
This seems like a more realistic and well-motivated proposal, IMHO. I am a little curious that having the ability to switch between asking for an object's contents and its metadata would lead to saving thousands of processes per server.
(Apropos of this series, I am curious: how long does GitLab keep a pair of cat-file programs running for each repository?)
In any case, I'll take a closer look over the aforementioned version and let you know what my thoughts are, probably tomorrow.
> 1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/20220128183319.43496-1-johncai86@gmail.com/
Thanks, Taylor