Re: Recording merges after repo conversion

[Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1718 bytes --]

On Wednesday 31 October 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Johan Herland wrote:
> > On Wednesday 31 October 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > > On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Peter Karlsson wrote:
> > > > Johannes Schindelin:
> > > > > Why should it?  This would contradict the whole "a commit sha1 
> > > > > hashes the commit, and by inference the _whole_ history" 
> > > > > principle.
> > > > 
> > > > Does it?
> > > 
> > > Yes!  Of course!  If what you want becomes possible, I could make an 
> > > evil change in history long gone, and slip it by you.  You could not 
> > > even see the history which changed.
> > 
> > Well, technically, if the grafts file was part of the repo, you wouldn't 
> > be able to change the (in-tree) grafts file without affecting the SHA1 
> > of HEAD. In other words, given a commit SHA1 sum, you can be sure that 
> > someone else who checks out the same commit (and has no local 
> > modification to their grafts file) will see exactly the same history as 
> > you do.
> 
> All this does not change the fact that installing a graft and 'git gc 
> --prune'ing gets rid of the old history.  D'oh.

So will rebasing and --prune'ing, or pulling a rebased branch and --prune'ing. 
Git already gives you _plenty_ of different ropes to hang yourself with. The 
question is whether adding yet another one is worth it.

> Automatically installing grafts is wrong.

I tend to agree with you here, because the possibility for massive confusion 
is huge, but that doesn't deny the fact that, if used properly (and that's a 
_big_ 'if'), this is a very powerful feature.


...Johan

-- 
Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net>
www.herland.net

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]