Re: Proposal for missing blob support in Git repos

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> writes:

> I see the semantics as "don't write what you already have", where
> "have" means what you have in local storage, but if you extend "have"
> to what upstream has, then yes, you're right that this changes
> (ignoring shallow clones).
>
> This does remove a resistance that we have against hash collision (in
> that normally we would have the correct object for a given hash and
> can resist other servers trying to introduce a wrong object, but now
> that is no longer the case), but I think it's better than consulting
> the hook whenever you want to write anything (which is also a change
> in semantics in that you're consulting an external source whenever
> you're writing an object, besides the performance implications).

As long as the above pros-and-cons analysis is understood and we are
striking a balance between performance and strictness with such an
understanding of the implications, I am perfectly fine with the
proposal.  That is why my comment has never been "I think that is
wrong" but consistently was "I wonder if that is a good thing."

Thanks.