Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > There are two ways to change the approach here to fix the problem > of needing prepare_repo_settings() everyhwere: > > 1. With the idea that these sparse-checkout variables are > critical to the functionality of the repo, they should move > into the repository struct itself and be initialized along > with all other values there. This changes the patches (and my > follow-up series) significantly, but mechanically. > > 2. If we are going to change the intention of the repo settings > struct to move from "optional one-off feature flags" to > "important information about the core behavior of a repo" > then we should prepare_repo_settings() when initializing the > repository struct. > > My preference is (1). The only argument for (2) that I can think > of is that it is sometimes helpful to share only the settings for > a repo without sharing the whole repo. But that seems like a weak > reason right now. I do agree with the sentiment that being able to pass &repo.settings to helper function makes us feel safer, but I agree that it is a weak argument. If we reexamine other things in repo_settings, it may turn out that the same reasoning applies to them and we may be better off to roll repo_settings into the repository itself (after all, it is an embedded structure, not even a pointer in the main structure that points at an indenendent repo_settings structure), but that is totally outside the scope of this discussion. Thanks.
