On 07/27, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:40 AM Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> wrote: > > > > Currently the refs API takes a 'ref_store' as an argument to specify > > which ref store to iterate over; however it is more useful to specify > > the repository instead (or later a specific worktree of a repository). > > There is no 'later'. worktrees.c already passes a worktree specific > ref store. If you make this move you have to also design a way to give > a specific ref store now. > > Frankly I still dislike the decision to pass repo everywhere, > especially when refs code already has a nice ref-store abstraction. > Some people frown upon back pointers. But I think adding a back > pointer in ref-store, pointing back to the repository is the right > move.
I don't quite understand why the refs code would need a whole repository and not just the ref-store it self. I thought the refs code was self contained enough that all its state was based on the passed in ref-store. If its not, then we've done a terrible job at avoiding layering violations (well actually we're really really bad at this in general, and I *think* we're trying to make this better though the object store/index refactoring). If anything I would expect that the actual ref-store code would remain untouched by any refactoring and that instead the higher-level API that hasn't already been converted to explicitly use a ref-store (and instead just calls the underlying impl with get_main_ref_store()). Am I missing something here? -- Brandon Williams
