hoi :)

On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 04:12:10PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
quoted text
> It only gets interesting for commands that fetch new objects, ie do a=20
> "pull/fetch" op, and you'd need to know where/how to fetch new objects fo=
r=20
quoted text
> the xyzzy subproject, so that's a "naming" issue. You have a few choices:
>=20
>  - get all the objects directly from the subproject as if it was one big=
=20
quoted text
>    project.
>=20
>    I actually think this sucks. Why? Because it puts an insane load on th=
e=20
quoted text
>    server side, which basically needs to traverse the object list of the=
=20
quoted text
>    _sum_ of all projects. An initial clone (or a really big pull, which=
=20
quoted text
>    comes to the same thing) would be absolutely horrendous

I don't buy your scalability argument.
By dividing the object traversal in separate steps you do not win
anything.  The complexity of the operation still stays the same, as you
still have to traverse the exact same amount of objects.

By separating the repositories you just make reachability analyis be
totally awkward, without winning anything.

--=20
Martin Waitz