From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sean Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/5] Implement 'prior' commit object links (and other commit links ideas) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 04:57:52 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20060425035421.18382.51677.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <7v7j5e2jv7.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20060425043436.2ff53318.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Apr 25 11:02:58 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 1FYJR4-0001ur-1T for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:02:18 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932153AbWDYJCP (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2006 05:02:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932150AbWDYJCO (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2006 05:02:14 -0400 Received: from bayc1-pasmtp11.bayc1.hotmail.com ([65.54.191.171]:57290 "EHLO BAYC1-PASMTP11.BAYC1.HOTMAIL.COM") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932154AbWDYJCO (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2006 05:02:14 -0400 X-Originating-IP: [69.156.138.66] X-Originating-Email: [seanlkml@sympatico.ca] Received: from linux1.attic.local ([69.156.138.66]) by BAYC1-PASMTP11.BAYC1.HOTMAIL.COM over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 25 Apr 2006 02:06:20 -0700 Received: from guru.attic.local (guru.attic.local [10.10.10.28]) by linux1.attic.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C6CC644C28; Tue, 25 Apr 2006 05:02:10 -0400 (EDT) To: jnareb@gmail.com, git@vger.kernel.org Message-Id: <20060425045752.0c6fbc21.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> In-Reply-To: <20060425043436.2ff53318.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.0.4 (GTK+ 2.8.15; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Apr 2006 09:06:20.0796 (UTC) FILETIME=[84E143C0:01C66847] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 04:34:36 -0400 sean wrote: > If you're cherry-picking from a disposable branch, then you don't want to > include a link to it in your new commit. Once you include the link, the > source commit should be protected from pruning just like any other piece > of history. Otherwise there's no way for fsck-objects to know if a missing > object means corruption or not. So you need a way at commit time to > request the explicit linkage. Actually this implies that anyone pulling just this branch would potentially also end up pulling large portions of other branches too. So maybe making them optional is The Right Thing. In which case, we'd just have to accept these as weaker than the parentage links and fsck-objects et. al. would have to tolerate such missing commits. So now that i've clearly come down in favor of both sides of this argument, i'll leave the decision to smarter people than me. Sean