From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] Teach "fsck" not to follow subproject links Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:30:11 -0700 Message-ID: <7vbqhul3yk.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <461D6432.90205@v ilain.net> <461D6858.4090 007@vilain.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Lang , Sam Vilain , Git Mailing List To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Apr 12 04:30:21 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 1Hbp4l-0003Ry-CS for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 04:30:19 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161480AbXDLCaP (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:30:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161483AbXDLCaP (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:30:15 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao104.cox.net ([68.230.241.42]:61756 "EHLO fed1rmmtao104.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161480AbXDLCaN (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:30:13 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao104.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.05.02.00 201-2174-114-20060621) with ESMTP id <20070412023012.NERW1271.fed1rmmtao104.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:30:12 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id m2WB1W00l1kojtg0000000; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:30:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:14:31 -0700 (PDT)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Linus Torvalds writes: > But for git projects, even alternates isn't safe, in case somebody bases > their own work on a version of "pu" that eventually goes away (even with > reflogs, pruning *eventually* takes place). > > So I tend to think that alternates and shared object directories are > really for "temporary" stuff, or for *managed* repositories that are at > git *hosting* sites (eg repo.or.cz), and where there is some other safety > involved, ie users don't actually access the object directories directly > in any way. Actually that is not even true for repo.or.cz -- the site lets people to create *forks* of the main project, and I recall it is implemented in terms of alternates. That's one of the reasons I never asked to take over git.git repository there. I have alt-git.git instead, which does not allow forks.