On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:07 PM, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 05:40:34PM -0700, Jonathan Tan wrote: > >> Before I get into the details, I have some questions: >> >> 1. I am concerned that "struct repository" will end up growing without >> bounds as we store more and more repo-specific concerns in it. Could it >> be restricted to just the fields populated by repo_init()? >> repo_read_index() will then return the index itself, instead of using >> "struct repository" as a cache. This means that code using >> repo_read_index() will need to maintain its own variable holding the >> returned index, but that is likely a positive - it's better for code to >> just pass around the specific thing needed between functions anyway, as >> opposed to passing a giant "struct repository" (which partially defeats >> the purpose of eliminating the usage of globals). > > I think the repository object has to become a kitchen sink of sorts, > because we have tons of global variables representing repo-wide config.
AFAICT we want to operate on struct 'the_repo' and struct 'the_cmd_options' eventually. In our use case of submodules the submodules would ignore the settings of the main repo, but still accept guidance of the_cmd_config or 'the_config. > So I have a feeling that we're always going to need some > big object to hold all that context when doing multi-repo operations in > a single process. Well not just one big struct, but two. (or more?)
