Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] PATH WALK I: The path-walk API
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Nov 26, 2024, 08:16 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqr06yxvdx.fsf@gitster.g>
- In-Reply-To
- <Z0V8D4r5YbxjNvPs@pks.im>
Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
Show 16 quoted lines
>> > 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.
Ah, I misspoke and failed to add "in order to implement these new features" after "is needed". I like the idea of "backfill" thing, too (as code paths to deal with promisor remotes irritates me ;-).
Thanks.