From: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
To: gitster@pobox.com
Cc: jonathantanmy@google.com, git@vger.kernel.org, emilyshaffer@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] fetch: delay fetch_if_missing=0 until after config
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 12:18:04 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191024191804.57275-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqo8y6g3yu.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
> > fetch_if_missing is set to 0 too early - ".gitmodules" here should be
> > lazily fetched. Git must set fetch_if_missing to 0 before the fetch
> > because as part of the fetch, packfile negotiation happens (and we do
> > not want to fetch any missing objects when checking existence of
> > objects)...
>
> Is it only me to feel that this is piling band-aids on top of
> band-aids?
To me, this is moving a band-aid, not adding another one. But to the
bigger point...
> Perhaps the addition (and enabling) of lazy-fetch should have been
> done after "checking existence" calls are vetted and sifted into two
> categories? Some accesses to objects are "because we need it
> now---so let's lazily fetch if that is available as a fallback
> option to us", as opposed to "if we do not have it locally right
> now, we want to know the fact". And each callsite should be able to
> declare for what reason between the two it is making the access.
>
> The single fetch-if-missing boolean may have been a quick-and-dirty
> way to get the ball rolling, but perhaps the codebase grew up enough
> so that it is time to wean off of it?
This is one of the alternatives I mentioned in the original email [1]
after "---". But to elaborate on that, I prefer sifting regions over
sifting calls.
Sifting calls into two categories might work, but it's error-prone in
that we would have to do the same line-by-line analysis we did when we
added the repository argument to many functions, and we would have to
modify functions like parse_commit() to take a flag similar to
OBJECT_INFO_SKIP_FETCH_OBJECT. Also, we would have to do the same
careful inspection for future patches.
Instead, we can control whether a region of code lazy-fetches by moving
fetch_if_missing to the struct repository object and using a struct
repository that has fetch_if_missing==0 when we don't want lazy
fetching. Besides being less error-prone, the infrastructure for this
has already been built (if I remember correctly, for submodules, at
first).
The microproject to put fetch_if_missing into struct repository and my
Outreachy project 'Refactor "git index-pack" logic into library code'
[2] are steps towards this goal. (I don't think that the latter is
strictly necessary, but it will make things simpler. In particular,
passing "-C" then the_repository->gitdir to index-pack makes a few tests
fail - not many, but not zero; and even after we resolve that, we would
need CLI parameters ensuring that we marshal everything we need from
the_repository, including fetch_if_missing. It seems better to libify
index-pack first.)
[1] https://public-inbox.org/git/20191007181825.13463-1-jonathantanmy@google.com/
[2] https://www.outreachy.org/apply/project-selection/#git
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-24 19:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-07 18:18 [PATCH] fetch: delay fetch_if_missing=0 until after config Jonathan Tan
2019-10-23 21:03 ` Emily Shaffer
2019-10-23 21:44 ` [PATCH v2] " Jonathan Tan
2019-10-23 23:30 ` Emily Shaffer
2019-10-23 23:34 ` [PATCH v3] " Jonathan Tan
2019-10-24 4:30 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-10-24 19:18 ` Jonathan Tan [this message]
2019-10-25 2:38 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-10-25 17:41 ` Jonathan Tan
2019-10-29 1:39 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-11-01 20:43 ` Jonathan Tan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191024191804.57275-1-jonathantanmy@google.com \
--to=jonathantanmy@google.com \
--cc=emilyshaffer@google.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).