From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Change set based shallow clone Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 21:13:07 -0700 Message-ID: <7vpse4uzos.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <9e4733910609071923tf1c49f6o70419e961e9eb66f@mail.gmail.com> <17666.4936.894588.825011@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <17666.13716.401727.601933@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Linus Torvalds" , "Paul Mackerras" , "Jon Smirl" , "linux@horizon.com" , "Git Mailing List" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Sep 10 06:12:54 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GMGga-00065m-Us for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 10 Sep 2006 06:12:49 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965227AbWIJEMd (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:12:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965228AbWIJEMd (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:12:33 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao08.cox.net ([68.230.241.31]:61356 "EHLO fed1rmmtao08.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965227AbWIJEMc (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:12:32 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao08.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060910041231.IWJP22977.fed1rmmtao08.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:12:31 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id LUCX1V00X1kojtg0000000 Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:12:33 -0400 To: "Marco Costalba" In-Reply-To: (Marco Costalba's message of "Sun, 10 Sep 2006 05:49:47 +0200") 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: "Marco Costalba" writes: > On 9/9/06, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >> The example is >> >> A <--- tip of branch >> / \ >> B E >> | | >> | F >> | / >> C >> | >> D >> ... >> > > Ok now it' clear, thanks. But anyhow I think that it should be > possible to avoid the check and reordering on the receiver side. > > Suppose for a moment to split the graph drawing from the sequence > reordering problem, suppose for a moment that receiver does do not > draw the graph immediately. > > As you described, in our case git-rev-list sends the following sequence: > A, B, C, D, E, F > > instead git-rev-list --topo-order would have sent something like > A, E, F, B, C, D > > Now I ask, is it possible to have a sequence (without latency) like > A, B, C, D, (-3)E, (-3)F > > where, in case of not topological correct revisions, git-rev-list > gives the hint on the correct position in sequence (3 revs before in > our case) where the revision would have been if the sequence would > have been --topo-order ? When rev-list is writing E out, it does not know it is a descendant of something it already emitted (i.e. C) because it hasn't looked at F nor checked its parent yet. So asking for (-3)F may be fine but I think (-3)E is just a fantasy.