Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] PATH WALK I: The path-walk API

From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Date: Nov 26, 2024, 07:43 UTC
Message-ID: <Z0V8D4r5YbxjNvPs@pks.im>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqa5dmzboa.fsf@gitster.g>

On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 04:39:17PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
> 
> > The question of course is whether these tools require the path-walk API,
> > or whether they could be built on top of existing functionality. But if
> > there are good reasons why the existing functionality is insufficient
> > then I'd be all for having the path-walk API, even if it doesn't help us
> > with repo size reductions as we initially thought.
> 
> Is the implied statement that we didn't quite see sufficient rationale
> to convince ourselves that a new path-walk machinery is needed?

No, it's rather that I didn't find the time yet to have a deeper look at the patch series to figure out for myself whether the path-walk API is needed for them. So I was trying to prompt Derrick with the above to find out whether he thinks that it is needed for both of these features and if so why the existing APIs are insufficient.

I'm already sold on the idea of git-survey(1) and git-backfill(1), so if there are two use cases where the API makes sense I'm happy to have the additional complexity even if it's not needed anymore for the repo size reduction.

Patrick