Re: [PATCH 0/2] Controversial blob munging series

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
...

quoted

... I am inclined to think that this is quite fundamental.  I
think you just fell into category who want "extended semantics"
Linus talked about in $gmane/45214:

  I suspect that this gets some complaining off our back, but I *also* 
  suspect that people will actually end up really screwing themselves with 
  something like this and then blaming us and causing a huge pain down the 
  line when we've supported this and people want "extended semantics" that 
  are no longer clean.

which is kind of dissapointing.

I think this was the biggest worry.  If even Dscho, who is among
a dozen people with the most intimate knowledge of git on the
planet, gets it wrong, I can almost guarantee that we will get
into the mess Linus predicted above.

quoted

Even if you somehow solved the issue of "stat" rule, I do not
know what your plans are to manage the blobs that you drop in
the object store.  The list of object names in the mail-index
file you are generating do not count as connectivity for the
purpose of fetch/push/fsck/prune.

I had the idea to update a ref, which holds "trees" of message-id -> blob 
pairs, and get updated at the same time.

I somehow thought this mailbox thing was because you wanted to
transfer mailboxes across repositories.  How would you prevent
that ref from getting out of sync with the mail-index file git
knows nothing about its involvement in connectivity?