Stefan Beller [off-list ref] writes:
The step to take an object store would just add expressiveness
to the code, which may help in understanding what part of the code is
related to what other part of the code, so it may be a readability gain
on its own?
It certainly would allow you to have a standalone object store that
is not associated with *any* repository, but if we are not using
such a layout, I doubt it would be a readability gain to add excess
and unexercised expressiveness to the code.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Stefan Beller [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
The step to take an object store would just add expressiveness
to the code, which may help in understanding what part of the code is
related to what other part of the code, so it may be a readability gain
on its own?
It certainly would allow you to have a standalone object store that
is not associated with *any* repository, but if we are not using
such a layout, I doubt it would be a readability gain to add excess
and unexercised expressiveness to the code.
So you favor v1?
Duy seems to be ok with v1 too if there is consensus that it is best
(or rather "if it makes Stefan's life hell, it's not worth doing.")[1].
I will try to resend that v1 shortly[2], as the only actual concern about the
code was where one struct was defined[3]. All other discussion was
meta-level, which direction to go.
Thanks for the clarification!
Stefan
[1] https://public-inbox.org/git/CACsJy8CPKESE8atc_eWdNVknQYp9T6ebwKwCdzLHyaFKH2BnZA@mail.gmail.com/
[2] https://public-inbox.org/git/20180213012241.187007-1-sbeller@google.com/
[3] https://public-inbox.org/git/20180213185120.GA108526@google.com/