From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [217.216.95.84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D23BDDA9 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2026 04:24:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.216.95.84 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775535877; cv=none; b=I+QclzdU2L4jvRW575bDOW/049xtyHST4uaetquR26FnEyX4GTQZImyI4B3NFLnVcS/SZfA22mfiUaB4bRZeguh/tVYBD+t/+iuiGACu0miv5f+Jk8IUCvm963qm4nBiWbRdWEoc8dSHc85dzC+AZ6mR4HWQmid35CPiVI4lwDI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775535877; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KwvJ+8y8dIF1PDEJazbnzam1n+TwvFV5lZu2BaK8uC4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=q/lDQufdnSus38MGnJQ4qPkFvJ+47aB9s6xasnnHFqa2gNsH0Pc3+JI7QAlrNbuhb0bKj0UjAgdqMXFoEqbzu4mewbGWo5tipaAb/9AwPsaUpUpK5YPJXMeGJRU4fji05Du4nr1Zcaej/Dofi7WhrNbQjCMVmFfRBKP+Uwt4iMc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b=OFFfjtZV; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.216.95.84 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b="OFFfjtZV" Received: (qmail 268812 invoked by uid 106); 7 Apr 2026 04:24:33 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=peff.net; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=20240930; bh=KwvJ+8y8dIF1PDEJazbnzam1n+TwvFV5lZu2BaK8uC4=; b=OFFfjtZVzQpCEzh/ipsgijsm5ZUUvv5Yq0ylDN3ELPkYq3Je8zEaW51FV8Ywp2r08/Lonliq5z9h+His1XAF08jJU50dc4q4b5+DgYbmNIV1bCmcmGrCtgeeJuJTh3yF6Fdg+RPK3eRl25VFzMUm7QAPMuGpGdITXO+1gdHcN7XyZbIJ2vRiGy6WYEW+ByuEE6p59+sn3AcSOJpp8xKpJo2B4Z/3DYo0m4D1SQWglo/QjqqYhzmt57/uSIVGrPBTOwLpQ6dbo3UBZcfd3xg5NlCS0gAD0imSY4B4DKLRQMrH1Gz4GAl2GiGPrrh91c+kaqczJLbWB9XFz1y4SkRf2w== Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Apr 2026 04:24:33 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 440608 invoked by uid 111); 7 Apr 2026 04:24:33 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 07 Apr 2026 00:24:33 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2026 00:24:32 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Elijah Newren Cc: Junio C Hamano , "Raymond E. Pasco" , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [WIP PATCH] fast-export: emit deletions first Message-ID: <20260407042432.GA627864@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20260406063607.15353-1-ray@ameretat.dev> <20260406212937.GA30202@coredump.intra.peff.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Mon, Apr 06, 2026 at 02:44:05PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > > It's also possible that sorting should be the responsibility of the > > receiver. I.e., should fast-import see: > > > > M 100644 :blob_label a/b > > D a > > > > and figure it out? Or maybe we want both (to help other consumers of > > fast-export, but also to help fast-import when consuming output of other > > sources). > > Would re-ordering on fast-import's side introduce bugs or violate > user's assumptions? Right now, fast-import has no check to prevent > more than one command for the same pathname being given, and has a > last-entry-wins ruling. Thus filemodify PATH followed by filedelete > PATH gives different results than reversing the order. Most probably > wouldn't care or want to ever do that, but I could see it as a way of > allowing you to change your mind in the stream and override an earlier > directive you sent. Hmm, good point. It probably is better to leave the reading side as-is, then, to be on the safe side. -Peff