From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rogan Dawes Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] Teach "fsck" not to follow subproject links Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:00:37 +0200 Message-ID: <461F46B5.2020007@dawes.za.net> References: <56b7f5510704121132g3961060amb394978bb49093e6@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Dana How , David Lang , Sam Vilain , Git Mailing List , Junio C Hamano To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Apr 13 11:01:03 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 1HcHeI-0005io-CO for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:00:54 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752930AbXDMJAm (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Apr 2007 05:00:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752915AbXDMJAm (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Apr 2007 05:00:42 -0400 Received: from sd-green-bigip-74.dreamhost.com ([208.97.132.74]:52751 "EHLO spunkymail-a16.dreamhost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752097AbXDMJAl (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Apr 2007 05:00:41 -0400 Received: from [192.168.201.103] (dsl-146-24-118.telkomadsl.co.za [165.146.24.118]) by spunkymail-a16.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E37A7CC3E; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 02:00:38 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Yes. > > The issues for hosting sites are very different from the issues of > individual developers having their own git repositories, and I agree 100% > that both alternates and shared object directories make tons of sense for > hosting. > >> Below I talk about a possible way we could use git >> without changing it (since I recognize this would be a minority usage >> pattern). > > I hope it wouldn't even be a minority usage pattern. I am a firm believer > that distributed SCM's and git in particular makes a lot more sense for > source control hosting than CVS or SVN do. I'm really disappointed with > things like sourceforge, and part of the problem is literally that a > centralized SCM is really *fundamentally* wrong for a hosting entity. > > Using a distributed SCM just makes _so_ much more sense for hosting > projects, and I've actually very much wanted to try to make sure that git > can help people who host things. > And btw, I think the shared object model really works very well, but I > think it has to be paired with some stricter rules than people who use > their own repos tend to have. For example, end-point developers have > become very used to rebasing and generally rewriting history (or just > resetting to an older state), and that's something that works find in a > "local repository" setup, but it's also the kinds of patterns that can > really screw you in a hosted and shared-object environment. > Would it not make sense for a hosting environment to say, if you are using alternates, or shared object directories, then you need to include *all* the refs in *all* the projects if you ever do an fsck? I'm not sure how well git will scale in this case, although it just should be a matter of how well git scales to dealing with a single project with tens of thousands of refs/tags/etc. The only problem might be in passing all those refs/tags to fsck in one go. STDIN, I guess? Rogan