From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10EDD203EC for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 20:05:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753715AbcLMUFV (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2016 15:05:21 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:54611 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753682AbcLMUFH (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2016 15:05:07 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67BE25595D; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 15:05:05 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=gfG80qBDIf3rhgtRNUNZes2gtHI=; b=jDzYz5 zfskpPW/5QLwUxNhvTjICLtJWfTtRX+wXHlDNqiUL6geDWIG6mgDGl7qkSSvmuJh pWKnxRInHJ5WuDi451psdmCa43lYiZdh7Zva4CNuPSW2H3v3CTEWj1rN/6y/5Te+ n/FFyWdYWIYJgBDX3wCd3VhmH5nbIXEgndFmw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=N6xmuMfyufs8QsHmQoxDdP23Jsnk1Kvk Q930S+KOAU4BPp63Rg9gAA7Ik9gfVXrMverwQxcEsuxcCSUNQb4sR+VPW9xm9xAn Tzhfg0pX64q9YYM2Q5Qr6m84iAOxx3w2eiWgWdZEZBS0PFUR9n2tgAd+AeIpECQH i+OW75LtNZk= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A2D25595B; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 15:05:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1760355956; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 15:05:04 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Christian Couder Cc: git , Jeff King , Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy , Mike Hommey , Lars Schneider , Eric Wong , Christian Couder Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH v3 00/16] Add initial experimental external ODB support References: <20161130210420.15982-1-chriscool@tuxfamily.org> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 12:05:02 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Christian Couder's message of "Tue, 13 Dec 2016 17:40:16 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 6FB95D74-C16F-11E6-A872-E98412518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Christian Couder writes: > In general I think that having a lot of refs is really a big problem > right now in Git as many big organizations using Git are facing this > problem in one form or another. > So I think that support for a big number of refs is a separate and > important problem that should and hopefully will be solved. But you do not have to make it worse. Is "refs" a good match for the problem you are solving? Or is it merely an expedient thing to use? I think it is the latter, judging by your mentioning RefTree. Whatever mechanism we choose, that will be carved into stone in users' repositories and you'd end up having to support it, and devise the migration path out of it if the initial selection is too problematic. That is why people (not just me) pointed out upfront that using refs for this purose would not scale.