Re: [PATCH 00/15] [RFC] Maintenance jobs and job runner

[Danh Doan <congdanhqx@gmail.com>]

On 2020-04-07 06:59:08-0400, Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/6/2020 8:50 PM, Danh Doan wrote:
> > On 2020-04-03 20:16:21-0400, Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 4/3/2020 5:40 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >>> "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>>  * git run-job <job-name>: This builtin will run a single instance of a
> >>>>    maintenance job.
> >>>>    
> >>>>  * git job-runner [--repo=<path>]: This builtin will run an infinite loop
> >>>>    that executes git run-job as a subcommand.
> >>>
> >>> What does this have to do with "git", though?  IOW, why does this
> >>> have to be part of Git, so that those who would benefit from having
> >>> a mechanism that makes it easy to run regular maintenance tasks but
> >>> are not Git users (or those that want to do such maintenance tasks
> >>> that are not necessarily tied to "git") must use "git" to do so?
> > 
> > I also agree with Junio,
> > I don't think Git should be responsible to be a scheduler.
> > It's the job of either tranditional crontab, at on *nix, or scheduler
> > on Windows.
> > 
> >> That's a reasonable reaction. The short version of my reasoning is that
> >> many many people _use_ Git but are not Git experts. While a Git expert
> >> could find the right set of commands to run and at what frequency to
> >> keep their repo clean, most users do not want to spend time learning
> >> these commands. It's also worth our time as contributors to select what
> > 
> > And now, people will need to learn _both_ Git existing maintainance
> > command, and new scheduler (Do I understand it right?, I haven't go
> > through all patches)
> 
> The point is that they would not need to learn the existing commands.
> They could accept the community's "best practices" by running the
> simple command to start background maintenance.

We could provide some "best practices" by an FAQ.
People can refer to it for "best practices" and run their favourite
choice of scheduler.

> In an "enterprise" environment, the users would not even need to learn
> the command in the first place, because the engineering tools team
> could configure the maintenance tools using the necessary setup scripts
> to built the repo.

In that "enterprise" environment, if the engineering tools team could
configure the maintainance tools using the command that introduced
together with this series, that very engineering tools team could
configure the scheduler to run required Git command, or create their
own wrappers. In such "enterprise" environment, most of computers'
software set are configured to be installed, the engineering tools
team know which software're installed in which system, they should
know which set of scheduler should be run, it should be simple for
them to configure their system.

> > Yes, it could be a setup it once and forget, but,
> > if there's a problem with their local repo, they will scratch
> > their head to understand what wrong with them.
> > 
> > It's easier to destroy their repo, and it's harder to know what
> > operation is running in their computer.
> 
> That's why we need to be careful. Luckily, these steps have been
> tested in the wild for over a year with great success (as part of
> VFS for Git).

No offence but I find this quote could be applied:

There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. - Tony Hoare.

Adding this set of commands to Git gonna made Git over-complicated,
IMHO.

-- 
Danh