On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 09:28:13AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > > > Yeah, I understand that confusion indeed. I don't think that the other > > proposals we've got are a lot better, either: > > > > - `odb_backend` was shot down because it may cause the association > > that one object database has one backend. But backends are per > > alternate, so there's a mismatch in expectations. > > I do not see where that association would come from, though. But I > agree with the other objection that the word "backend" is more about > implementation and less about an instance that is realized by that > implementation, i.e. two such components that runs the code for a > single backend may be part of a single object database. > > > - `odb_source` is better, but we now have the problem that we use > > "alternate" interchangably in most cases where we also use > > `odb_source`. This will likely lead to somewhat awkward interfaces. > > > > The problem with `odb_source` might eventually go away once we clearly > > distinguish the "alternates" concept from the low-level mechanism to > > access objects. But I'm just not certain at all whether it won't cause > > more confusion when in most cases "alternates" and "sources" can be used > > somewhat interchangably. > > > > I dunno. The more I think about this the more I start to like the > > `odb_source` name. > > Yeah, I do not mind calling the instantiation backed by a backend > implementation a odb_source. > > In any case, when deciding the terminology, we should look at what > we currently have in the glossary and imagine how they should look > like in the updated world. Currently, > > - "alternate object database" is described as inheriting the > entirety of another "object database" (we deliberately do not say > that this other object database belongs to another repository, as > a standalone object database is a valid option). > > - "object database" is described as what holds a set of "objects". > There is no complication here ;-) > > When treating the set of objects stored in $GIT_DIR/objects/??/ > directories (i.e. "loose objects") and the set of objects stored in > $GIT_DIR/objects/pack/ directory (i.e. "packed objects") as two > separate odb_something, with a vision that we may add different > implementations of such collection later, it would be very confusing > to call each of them "an alternate". "source" may not be ideal, but > it is the best among what we collectively have come up with, I think. Okay, let's settle on `odb_source` then. I'll send a new version once I have wrangled all the conflicts :) Thanks for the discussion, all! Patrick
