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 Fri, May 19, 2006 at 12:20:45AM +0200, Yann Dirson wrote:
> 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.

To make my point maybe more clear: if someone really wants to make a
graft permanent, wouldn't some history rewriting (eg. with
cg-admin-rewritehist, but see the patch I posted against it) be the
way to go, instead of relying on out-of-band transfer of graft data ?

-- 
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/>