Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] PATH WALK I: The path-walk API

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 17:16:26 +0900

Patrick Steinhardt <[email-masked]> writes:

>> > then I'd be all for having the path-walk API, even if it doesn't help us
>> > with repo size reductions as we initially thought.
>> 
>> Is the implied statement that we didn't quite see sufficient rationale
>> to convince ourselves that a new path-walk machinery is needed?
>
> No, it's rather that I didn't find the time yet to have a deeper look at
> the patch series to figure out for myself whether the path-walk API is
> needed for them. So I was trying to prompt Derrick with the above to
> find out whether he thinks that it is needed for both of these features
> and if so why the existing APIs are insufficient.
>
> I'm already sold on the idea of git-survey(1) and git-backfill(1), so if
> there are two use cases where the API makes sense I'm happy to have the
> additional complexity even if it's not needed anymore for the repo size
> reduction.

Ah, I misspoke and failed to add "in order to implement these new
features" after "is needed".  I like the idea of "backfill" thing,
too (as code paths to deal with promisor remotes irritates me ;-).

Thanks.