From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jakub Narebski Subject: Re: [PATCH] [BUG] Add a test to check git-prune does not throw away revs hidden by a graft. Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 21:00:00 +0200 Organization: At home Message-ID: References: <20060518213519.14577.67309.stgit@gandelf.nowhere.earth> <7viro3nh07.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20060518222045.GB6535@nowhere.earth> <20060518225216.GC6535@nowhere.earth> <7vsln7lzbj.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20060519185558.GE6535@nowhere.earth> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri May 19 21:00:25 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FhACt-0002po-TT for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 19 May 2006 21:00:16 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932468AbWESTAL (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 May 2006 15:00:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932469AbWESTAL (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 May 2006 15:00:11 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:16781 "EHLO ciao.gmane.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932468AbWESTAJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 May 2006 15:00:09 -0400 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1FhACc-0002kr-D1 for git@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 19 May 2006 20:59:58 +0200 Received: from 212-87-13-71.sds.uw.edu.pl ([212.87.13.71]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 19 May 2006 20:59:58 +0200 Received: from jnareb by 212-87-13-71.sds.uw.edu.pl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 19 May 2006 20:59:58 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: git@vger.kernel.org X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212-87-13-71.sds.uw.edu.pl User-Agent: KNode/0.7.7 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Yann Dirson wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 03:53:36PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Yann Dirson writes: >> >> > To make my point maybe more clear: if someone really wants to make a >> > graft permanent, wouldn't some history rewriting ... be the >> > way to go,... >> >> Yes. > > So if temporary usage is a typical use for grafts, don't we want to > protect people using them from pruning ? I got no feedback to my > suggestion of changing the default behaviour, even to say it was a bad > idea :) Perhaps prune should be conservative by default, and follow both grafts and original parents, and use appropriate options to preserve or not preserve grafts. -- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland