From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Controversial blob munging series Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:49:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <11772221041630-git-send-email-junkio@cox.net> <7vzm4zf1zx.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7virbnexuc.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Apr 23 20:50:32 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 1Hg3cD-0000hp-SJ for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:50:22 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161383AbXDWSuT (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:50:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161404AbXDWSuS (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:50:18 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:59710 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1161383AbXDWSuR (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:50:17 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2007 18:50:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO [138.251.11.74]) [138.251.11.74] by mail.gmx.net (mp041) with SMTP; 23 Apr 2007 20:50:15 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+NwLEsMrqNxBsraamUhcA6ilxJyOz6Onne5tyzEB /swN48J3bb7ttB X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <7virbnexuc.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > ... > >> ... I am inclined to think that this is quite fundamental. I > >> think you just fell into category who want "extended semantics" > >> Linus talked about in $gmane/45214: > >> > >> I suspect that this gets some complaining off our back, but I *also* > >> suspect that people will actually end up really screwing themselves with > >> something like this and then blaming us and causing a huge pain down the > >> line when we've supported this and people want "extended semantics" that > >> are no longer clean. > >> > >> which is kind of dissapointing. > > I think this was the biggest worry. If even Dscho, who is among > a dozen people with the most intimate knowledge of git on the > planet, gets it wrong, I can almost guarantee that we will get > into the mess Linus predicted above. Flattering always works :-) > >> Even if you somehow solved the issue of "stat" rule, I do not > >> know what your plans are to manage the blobs that you drop in > >> the object store. The list of object names in the mail-index > >> file you are generating do not count as connectivity for the > >> purpose of fetch/push/fsck/prune. > > > > I had the idea to update a ref, which holds "trees" of message-id -> blob > > pairs, and get updated at the same time. > > I somehow thought this mailbox thing was because you wanted to > transfer mailboxes across repositories. How would you prevent > that ref from getting out of sync with the mail-index file git > knows nothing about its involvement in connectivity? If your suspicion was that I did not really think it through, then you're correct. Of course, I would have transferred _all_ refs anyway, since the whole point of the exercise is to lose nothing. However, I see where your argument is going. Since Julian pointed out that there is a maildir patch for pine, I'll probably go for that one, since it is hanging lower. Ciao, Dscho