On Tue, 2015-08-04 at 06:09 +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:49 AM, David Turner wrote:
> > Simply treating refs/worktree as per-worktree, while the rest of refs/
> > is not, would be a few dozen lines of code. The full remapping approach
> > is likely to be a lot more. I've al
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:49 AM, David Turner wrote:
> Simply treating refs/worktree as per-worktree, while the rest of refs/
> is not, would be a few dozen lines of code. The full remapping approach
> is likely to be a lot more. I've already got the lmdb backend working
> with something like this
David Turner writes:
> I think making this configurable is (a) overkill and (b) dangerous.
> It's dangerous because the semantics of which refs are per-worktree is
> important to the correct operation of git, and allowing users to mess
> with it seems like a big mistake. Instead, we should figur
On Sat, 2015-08-01 at 08:51 +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> On 08/01/2015 07:12 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Michael Haggerty
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> It seems to me that adding a new top-level "worktree-refs" directory is
> >> pretty traumatic. Lots of people and t
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Michael Haggerty
> wrote:
>> Either way, there's also the question of who should know how to find the
>> worktree-specific references--the program that wants to access them, or
>> should there be a secret invisi
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> Either way, there's also the question of who should know how to find the
> worktree-specific references--the program that wants to access them, or
> should there be a secret invisible mapping that is done on lookup, and
> that knows the fu
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> For each worktree, we could then create a different view of the
> references by splicing parts of the full reference namespace together.
> This could even be based on config settings so that we don't have to
> hardcode information like "ref
Michael Haggerty writes:
> Hmm, ok, so you are thinking of a remote database with high latency. I
> was thinking more of something like LMDB, with latency comparable to
> filesystem storage.
Not necessarily. The comment was more from conceptual point: "Why
share what needs not to be shared?"
>
On 08/01/2015 07:12 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Michael Haggerty
> wrote:
>>
>> It seems to me that adding a new top-level "worktree-refs" directory is
>> pretty traumatic. Lots of people and tools will have made the assumption
>> that all "normal" references live
On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 22:12 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Michael Haggerty
> wrote:
> >
> > It seems to me that adding a new top-level "worktree-refs" directory is
> > pretty traumatic. Lots of people and tools will have made the assumption
> > that all "normal"
On Sat, 2015-08-01 at 06:04 +0200, Christian Couder wrote:
>
> Le 1 août 2015 09:01, "David Turner" a
> écrit :
> >
> > This is RFC because I'm not sure why show-ref only works on refs/
> (and
> > whether it should learn to look in worktree-refs/). I'm also not
> sure
> > whether there are other
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Michael Haggerty wrote:
>
> It seems to me that adding a new top-level "worktree-refs" directory is
> pretty traumatic. Lots of people and tools will have made the assumption
> that all "normal" references live under "refs/".
> ...
> It's all a bit frightening, fra
On 08/01/2015 01:56 AM, David Turner wrote:
> This is RFC because I'm not sure why show-ref only works on refs/ (and
> whether it should learn to look in worktree-refs/). I'm also not sure
> whether there are other changes I should make to refs.c to handle
> per-worktree refs; I basically did the
This is RFC because I'm not sure why show-ref only works on refs/ (and
whether it should learn to look in worktree-refs/). I'm also not sure
whether there are other changes I should make to refs.c to handle
per-worktree refs; I basically did the simplest thing I could think of
to start with.
--
T
14 matches
Mail list logo
