From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: grafts+repack+prune = history at danger Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:48:06 +0100 Organization: eudaptics software gmbh Message-ID: <45B9CE56.D16DFC81@eudaptics.com> References: <45B8E61E.C9C5E6C6@eudaptics.com> <7vireu7lj0.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <45B9B80E.E2534F97@eudaptics.com> <7vr6ti183o.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <45B9C836.728F31EC@eudaptics.com> <7vzm86yw0q.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jan 26 10:46:52 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HANfX-0000X5-Ek for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:46:51 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161012AbXAZJqs (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jan 2007 04:46:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161015AbXAZJqs (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jan 2007 04:46:48 -0500 Received: from cm56-163-160.liwest.at ([86.56.163.160]:16972 "EHLO linz.eudaptics.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161012AbXAZJqs (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jan 2007 04:46:48 -0500 Received: from eudaptics.com (tethys.linz.eudaptics [192.168.1.88]) by linz.eudaptics.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 263966D9; Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:46:47 +0100 (CET) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Johannes Sixt writes: > > > Here's my stance on it. Grafts should be a local matter. And they alter > > the world view, with a pronounciation on *view*. That's why I proposed > > that only log familiy of commands obey them[*]. And probably rev-list so > > that gitk et.al. have a way to obey them. And also the ref parser (so > > that master~20 is what it looks it is). Everything else should disregard > > grafts: repack, prune, fetch, -pack, push etc. No nasty side > > effects anymore. > > I said you are not agreeing, but I should have said you are not > understanding. Oh, I think I understand very well. It may just be that I cannot express myself that well ;) I propose that grafts are only about *view*, not database integrity. There are no tools that manipulate grafts, that would stop the user to make some blunder; the user has to edit the file *manually*. It is wrong, wrong, wrong to let such a file dictate database integrity. > grafts can bring otherwise disconnected commits into the > altered history, so if you want your log to honor grafts, your > prune and repack need to be aware of them lest you would not > lose them. Sure, if I connect my linux repo with a graft to the historical BK tree, then toss the ref that pointed to the historical tree, then git prune: - then currently it won't prune the historical tree - but under my proposal it would. Silly me. Why did I remove that ref? -- Hannes