From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: david@lang.hm Subject: Re: metastore Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 13:54:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <20070915145437.GA12875@piper.oerlikon.madduck.net> <20070916060859.GB24124@piper.oerlikon.madduck.net> <20070919191607.GE13683@hardeman.nu> <20071002195301.GB14171@lapse.madduck.net> <20071002195816.GA6759@hardeman.nu> <85lkalz3iv.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <20071002202333.GB16010@lapse.madduck.net> <20071002203941.GA18008@lapse.madduck.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: David Kastrup , David =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=E4rdeman?= , git@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Barkalow , Johannes Schindelin , "Thomas Harning Jr." , Francis Moreau , Nicolas Vilz To: martin f krafft X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Oct 02 22:54:07 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Icokh-0001yt-9X for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:53:59 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753920AbXJBUxt (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 16:53:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753918AbXJBUxt (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 16:53:49 -0400 Received: from dsl081-033-126.lax1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([64.81.33.126]:60713 "EHLO bifrost.lang.hm" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753915AbXJBUxt (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 16:53:49 -0400 Received: from asgard.lang.hm (asgard.lang.hm [10.0.0.100]) by bifrost.lang.hm (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id l92KrT2f023544; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 13:53:29 -0700 X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm In-Reply-To: <20071002203941.GA18008@lapse.madduck.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach david@lang.hm [2007.10.02.2129 +0100]: >> 1. you do want to be able to manipulate them >> >> 1a. how do you reconcile a conflict during a merge? > > How could there be a conflict if you can't make local changes > because you can't represent the attributes locally/natively? you merge two uptream branches that disagree about the attributes >> 2. git is a series of snapshots, what does it mean to 'stay unchanged'? > > In simple terms, let (content,A,B) be an object with content > "content" and extended attributes A,B, and B cannot be represented > locally, but a new object is committed with a change to attribute > A (content2,A2), then the result is (content2,A2,B), as B simply > comes from the (corresponding object of the) parent. > > Or am I totally misunderstanding? it's very possible that I am misunderstanding, but do we really want to have to go back to the parent to duplicate things when creating a new commit? and aren't you supposed to be able to have more then one parent? if you do, which one would you use? David Lang