From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51A4F207D6 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 05:58:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S980486AbdDYF6X (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2017 01:58:23 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:39567 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759974AbdDYF6W (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2017 01:58:22 -0400 Received: (qmail 26122 invoked by uid 109); 25 Apr 2017 05:58:19 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 05:58:19 +0000 Received: (qmail 2055 invoked by uid 111); 25 Apr 2017 05:58:44 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 01:58:44 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 25 Apr 2017 01:58:17 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 01:58:17 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Miguel Torroja , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fast-export: deletion action first Message-ID: <20170425055817.codq2q3fd54uebfx@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1493079137-1838-1-git-send-email-miguel.torroja@gmail.com> <20170425032927.74btvfcexbdq4rmz@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170425044641.sx5uoql4oiug6iq7@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 10:33:11PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > Anyway. I don't think Miguel's patch needs to solve all of the lingering > > rename cases. But I am curious whether it makes some rename cases worse, > > because the depth-sorting was kicking in before and making them work. > > I agree with you on both counts, and I care more about the second > sentence, not just "am curious", but "am worried". I am not sure > that this patch is safe---it looked more like robbing peter to pay > paul or the other way around. Fixing for one class of breakage > without regressing is one thing and it is perfectly fine to leave > some already broken case broken with such a fix. Claiming to fix > one class and breaking other class that was happily working is quite > different, and that is where my "Wait, we also allow renames?" comes > from. Yeah, I don't disagree. I am just curious first, then worried second. :) If I had to choose, though, I'd rather see the order be reliable for the no-renames case. IOW, if we must rob one peter, I'd rather it be the renames, which already have tons of corner cases (and which I do not think can be plugged for a reader which depends on the order of the entries; the dependencies can be cycles). Of course if we can make it work correctly in all of the non-cyclical cases, all the better. -Peff