From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Eric S. Raymond" Subject: Re: I have end-of-lifed cvsps Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 18:04:54 -0500 Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs Message-ID: <20131212230454.GA20054@thyrsus.com> References: <20131212042624.GB8909@thyrsus.com> <20131212171756.GA6954@inner.h.apk.li> <20131212182932.GB16960@thyrsus.com> <20131212193918.GA17529@thyrsus.com> <20131212205819.GA18166@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andreas Krey , Git Mailing List To: Martin Langhoff X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Dec 13 00:05:01 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VrFJU-0004c0-Bc for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:05:00 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751849Ab3LLXE4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Dec 2013 18:04:56 -0500 Received: from static-71-162-243-5.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([71.162.243.5]:43196 "EHLO snark.thyrsus.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751717Ab3LLXEz (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Dec 2013 18:04:55 -0500 Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D18A3380459; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 18:04:54 -0500 (EST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Martin Langhoff : > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > >> - regardless of commit ids, do you synthesize an artificial commit? > >> How do you define parenthood for that artificial commit? > > > > Because tagging is never used to deduce changesets, the case does not arise. > > So if a branch has a nonsensical branching point, or a tag is > nonsensical, is it ignored and not imported? I don't know what happens when identically-named tags point at changes that resolve into two different commits. I will figure that out and document it. There's evidence, in the form of some code that is #ifdefed out, that Keith considered trying to make synthetic commits from tag cliques. But abandoned the idea because he couldn't figure out how to assign such cliques to a branch. I'm not sure what counts as a nonsensical branching point. I do know that Keith left this rather cryptic note in a REAME: Disjoint branch resolution. Branches occurring in a subset of the files are not correctly resolved; instead, an entirely disjoint history will be created containing the branch revisions and all parents back to the root. I'm not sure how to fix this; it seems to implicitly assume there will be only a single place to attach as branch parent, which may not be the case. In any case, the right revision will have a superset of the revisions present in the original branch parent; perhaps that will suffice. -- Eric S. Raymond