Re: [WIP/RFC 00/23] repository object
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- May 22, 2017, 13:03 UTC
- Message-ID
- <alpine.DEB.2.21.1.1705221501540.3610@virtualbox>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAGZ79kbvhRzjbfiUNuc364tM8j1TpNEtGt6rtfG2h9Y=v4TVHw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Stefan,
On Sat, 20 May 2017, Stefan Beller wrote:
Show 15 quoted lines
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com> wrote: > > > This is still very much in a WIP state, though it does pass all tests. What > > I'm hoping for here is to get a discussion started about the feasibility of a > > change like this and hopefully to get the ball rolling. Is this a direction we > > want to move in? Is it worth the pain? > > I would be really happy to see this series land eventually. > > The introduction of a repo object will deliver performance at a higher > level, such as > * (remarked by Ben): enabling of threading > * submodules do not need to spawn processes > * I would imagine that developer velocity will go up by having less global state > in the long run.
* avoiding really ugly hacks such as save_env_before_alias() which are even incomplete, as git_dir is not reset upon restore_env().
Ciao, Dscho