From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] disable grafts during fetch/push/bundle Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:52:12 -0500 Message-ID: <20140305185212.GA23907@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20140304174806.GA11561@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20140305005649.GB11509@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Mar 05 19:52:21 2014 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 1WLGvT-0000RR-8B for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 19:52:19 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756700AbaCESwP (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:52:15 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:33557 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1756674AbaCESwO (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:52:14 -0500 Received: (qmail 17218 invoked by uid 102); 5 Mar 2014 18:52:14 -0000 Received: from c-71-63-4-13.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.63.4.13) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 12:52:14 -0600 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 05 Mar 2014 13:52:12 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:49:24AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Perhaps the right response is "grafts are broken, use git-replace > > instead". But then should we think about deprecating grafts? > > I am sort of surprised to hear that question, actually ;-) > > I didn't say that in the message you are responding to because I > somehow thought that everybody has been in agreement with these two > lines for a long while. Ever since I suggested the "replace" as an > alternative "grafts done right" and outlined how it should work to > Christian while sitting next to him in one of the early GitTogether, > the plan, at least in my mind, has always been exactly that: grafts > were a nice little attempt but is broken---if you really wanted to > muck with the history without rewriting (which is still discouraged, > by the way), do not use "graft", but use "replace". I certainly had in the back of my mind that grafts were a lesser form of "replace", and that eventually we could get rid of the former. Perhaps my question should have been: "why haven't we deprecated grafts yet?". -Peff