On 25/05/27 09:50AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes:
> > I think the only outstanding discussion is whether to name things
> > `odb_alternate` or `odb_source` [1]. In case others agree that
> > `odb_source` is a better name I'm happy to revise, but if not I'd rather
> > keep it as-is.
>
> The model in which the term "alternates" was born is "A repository
> has its own object directory, the primary one, and in addition it
> can borrow from zero or more alternate object directories that are
> used by other repositories". The presence of the primary makes the
> word "alternate" meaningful.
>
> Is the model now "A repository has one object store, which consists
> of one or more X, all of which are equals"? If there is no primary
> that is more special than others, then calling X an "alternate" may
> indeed sound funny, although (1) I do not find it terribly confusing
> and (2) I do not find "source" much better, either.
My understanding is that the object store still has a primary X and zero
or more alternative X. The idea is that eventually, with pluggable ODBs,
X can be a different backend/provider instead of just being "files". If
this is the case, calling X an "alternate" would mean we have a primary
"alternate" and potentially a set of "alternate" alternates.
This sounds a bit odd and doesn't quite match what I would intuitively
expect. But, I also don't find it super confusing either.
> The names we use to call the collection and the underlying
> implementations of the collection in the reference world
> unfortunately does not quite help to guide us, as we do not take two
> implementations and compose into one unified view, which is what we
> are doing in the object store. Hmmm...
Similar to references, I still think of a pluggable ODB as a "backend".
The main difference being that with references there is only a single
backend active ("file" or "reftables") at a time, while for the object
store there could be multiple.
-Justin
> We call pathspec elements given on the command line collectively a
> pathspec. "Object store elements like loose object directories and
> packfiles form the object store"? That may be a mouthful. I dunno.
