Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] remote: replace static variables with struct remote_state

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

There may be some other (real) reason where the resistance comes
from, that you may not be telling us, though.  But in what was
described in the message I am responding to, I didn't see much
convincing reason to argue _for_ keeping the contained objects
ignorant of the container and forcing callers to pass both to
functions that use both the container and contained to compute
something.

I am not you, so I can only speculate, but the real reason _could_
be that it makes it simpler to formulate steps 2 and 3 mechanically.
After adding "repo" parameter to a function that used to take, say,
a "branch", in step 3, a future clean-up series could add a .repo
member to branch objects and remove the "repo" parameter from such
function.

I think that approach would make more work to get to the final
state, though.

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

I am not you, so I can only speculate, but the real reason _could_
be that it makes it simpler to formulate steps 2 and 3 mechanically.

This is somewhat true, however...

I think that approach would make more work to get to the final
state, though.

I found that if I were to add the backpointer, it would have been better
to add it early and avoid this extra work that you mention here :)