Re: [PATCH 00/30] [RFC] Path-walk API and applications

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sep 23, 2024, 16:56 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq4j6648cr.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <6b672771-4016-49e8-a045-0a48bc8c1522@gmail.com>

Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> writes:

Show 5 quoted lines

> ... I can see an argument for either direction: having a new hash
> algorithm provides a smaller change to get most of the results for the
> full repack case, but gets worse performance in many push scenarios.
> This is the point of an RFC, to get questions like this worked out based
> on the "big picture" view of everything.

Exactly. We might want to use the series as an example in our developer docs on how to propose a large-ish effort.

Show 5 quoted lines

> Perhaps I should pause the --full-name-hash topic and focus on getting
> the --path-walk topic up and running. I am curious to hear from folks
> who are currently running Git servers about their thoughts on these
> trade-offs and potential uses in their environment. My needs on the
> client side are solved by the --path-walk approach.

Yeah, such third-party inputs would be very useful.

Thanks.