Re: [PATCH] [BUG] Add a test to check git-prune does not throw away revs hidden by a graft.

[Yann Dirson <ydirson@altern.org>]

On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 02:46:16PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:
> 
> > Is it/does it?
> >
> > I'd assume that if you have a graft, you _want_ the history to be hidden 
> > and pruned. 
> >
> > That's how you'd drop history, if you wanted to do it on purpose.
> 
> I haven't looked at what the test does, but I think he is
> talking about the opposite.  fsck by design does not honor
> grafts, and if you grafted a history back to your true root
> commit, that "older" history will be lost.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.  AFACT fsck does not
ignore grafts: if a rev is not accessible from heads because of a
graft, prune drops it, and fsck does not see a problem.

Linus, I understand your point, but the current situation is
problematic: a graft does not get propagated by cg-clone (and I
suppose not by git-clone or git-fetch either), so cloning a tree which
has undergone such a pruning operation results in an incomplete clone
(indeed it is how I met the problem).  Since grafts are supposed to
have local effect only (as far as I understand), I see it as a bad
indication to have such a remote effect.

Maybe to make things safe, prune should by default consider both
physical and grafted parents as accessible, and a flag could be added
to get the current behaviour for people really knowing what they're
doing ?

Best regards,
-- 
Yann Dirson    <ydirson@altern.org> |
Debian-related: <dirson@debian.org> |   Support Debian GNU/Linux:
                                    |  Freedom, Power, Stability, Gratis
     http://ydirson.free.fr/        | Check <http://www.debian.org/>