From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yann Dirson 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 00:52:16 +0200 Message-ID: <20060518225216.GC6535@nowhere.earth> References: <20060518213519.14577.67309.stgit@gandelf.nowhere.earth> <7viro3nh07.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20060518222045.GB6535@nowhere.earth> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linus Torvalds , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri May 19 00:40:37 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 1FgrAa-0005EJ-JE for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 19 May 2006 00:40:36 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751018AbWERWke (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 May 2006 18:40:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751019AbWERWkd (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 May 2006 18:40:33 -0400 Received: from smtp4-g19.free.fr ([212.27.42.30]:47805 "EHLO smtp4-g19.free.fr") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751003AbWERWkd (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 May 2006 18:40:33 -0400 Received: from bylbo.nowhere.earth (nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net [81.57.214.146]) by smtp4-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AE394F110; Fri, 19 May 2006 00:40:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from dwitch by bylbo.nowhere.earth with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FgrLt-0002fk-EG; Fri, 19 May 2006 00:52:17 +0200 To: Junio C Hamano Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060518222045.GB6535@nowhere.earth> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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 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 | Debian-related: | Support Debian GNU/Linux: | Freedom, Power, Stability, Gratis http://ydirson.free.fr/ | Check