mbox series

[0/2] Add OBJECT_INFO_NO_FETCH_IF_MISSING flag

Message ID 20190620083026.14524-1-chriscool@tuxfamily.org (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series Add OBJECT_INFO_NO_FETCH_IF_MISSING flag | expand

Message

Christian Couder June 20, 2019, 8:30 a.m. UTC 
In a review[1] of my "many promisor remotes" patch series[2] and in
the following thread, it was suggested that a flag should be passed to
tell oid_object_info_extended() that it should not fetch objects from
promisor remotes if they are missing, instead of using the ugly
fetch_if_missing global.

It looks like the OBJECT_INFO_FOR_PREFETCH flag already exists but
unfortunately conflates 2 separate things.

This patch series introduces OBJECT_INFO_NO_FETCH_IF_MISSING to
disambiguate the different meanings and then uses it instead of
OBJECT_INFO_FOR_PREFETCH where it makes sense.

1: https://public-inbox.org/git/b4d69d2b-dc0d-fffb-2909-c54060fe9cd1@gmail.com/
2: https://public-inbox.org/git/20190409161116.30256-1-chriscool@tuxfamily.org/

Christian Couder (2):
  object-store: introduce OBJECT_INFO_NO_FETCH_IF_MISSING
  sha1-file: use OBJECT_INFO_NO_FETCH_IF_MISSING

 object-store.h | 9 +++++++--
 sha1-file.c    | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Comments

Junio C Hamano June 20, 2019, 8:52 p.m. UTC | #1 
Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> writes:

> In a review[1] of my "many promisor remotes" patch series[2] and in
> the following thread, it was suggested that a flag should be passed to
> tell oid_object_info_extended() that it should not fetch objects from
> promisor remotes if they are missing, instead of using the ugly
> fetch_if_missing global.
>
> It looks like the OBJECT_INFO_FOR_PREFETCH flag already exists but
> unfortunately conflates 2 separate things.
>
> This patch series introduces OBJECT_INFO_NO_FETCH_IF_MISSING to
> disambiguate the different meanings and then uses it instead of
> OBJECT_INFO_FOR_PREFETCH where it makes sense.
>
> 1: https://public-inbox.org/git/b4d69d2b-dc0d-fffb-2909-c54060fe9cd1@gmail.com/
> 2: https://public-inbox.org/git/20190409161116.30256-1-chriscool@tuxfamily.org/

What commit did you base these two patches on?

>
> Christian Couder (2):
>   object-store: introduce OBJECT_INFO_NO_FETCH_IF_MISSING
>   sha1-file: use OBJECT_INFO_NO_FETCH_IF_MISSING
>
>  object-store.h | 9 +++++++--
>  sha1-file.c    | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Christian Couder June 21, 2019, 10:47 a.m. UTC | #2 
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 10:52 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > In a review[1] of my "many promisor remotes" patch series[2] and in
> > the following thread, it was suggested that a flag should be passed to
> > tell oid_object_info_extended() that it should not fetch objects from
> > promisor remotes if they are missing, instead of using the ugly
> > fetch_if_missing global.
> >
> > It looks like the OBJECT_INFO_FOR_PREFETCH flag already exists but
> > unfortunately conflates 2 separate things.
> >
> > This patch series introduces OBJECT_INFO_NO_FETCH_IF_MISSING to
> > disambiguate the different meanings and then uses it instead of
> > OBJECT_INFO_FOR_PREFETCH where it makes sense.
> >
> > 1: https://public-inbox.org/git/b4d69d2b-dc0d-fffb-2909-c54060fe9cd1@gmail.com/
> > 2: https://public-inbox.org/git/20190409161116.30256-1-chriscool@tuxfamily.org/
>
> What commit did you base these two patches on?

They were based on master at v2.22.0 when I worked on them, but I
didn't send them right away. And I didn't rebase them before I later
sent them.