From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: Recording merges after repo conversion Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:43:17 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: References: <200710311343.58414.johan@herland.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Peter Karlsson , Lars Hjemli , Benoit SIGOURE To: Johan Herland X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Oct 31 14:44:22 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 1InDrp-0007QZ-8n for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:44:21 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756615AbXJaNoE (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:44:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756532AbXJaNoB (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:44:01 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:37854 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755020AbXJaNoB (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:44:01 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 31 Oct 2007 13:43:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO [138.251.11.74]) [138.251.11.74] by mail.gmx.net (mp045) with SMTP; 31 Oct 2007 14:43:59 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18rUfwzShor9UD47JEUQJtja3lhn7HqAUI+YVdYP2 /x10/VNiAJVhsU X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <200710311343.58414.johan@herland.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 Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Johan Herland wrote: > On Wednesday 31 October 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Peter Karlsson wrote: > > > > > Johannes Schindelin: > > > > > > > Why should it? This would contradict the whole "a commit sha1 > > > > hashes the commit, and by inference the _whole_ history" > > > > principle. > > > > > > Does it? > > > > Yes! Of course! If what you want becomes possible, I could make an > > evil change in history long gone, and slip it by you. You could not > > even see the history which changed. > > Well, technically, if the grafts file was part of the repo, you wouldn't > be able to change the (in-tree) grafts file without affecting the SHA1 > of HEAD. In other words, given a commit SHA1 sum, you can be sure that > someone else who checks out the same commit (and has no local > modification to their grafts file) will see exactly the same history as > you do. All this does not change the fact that installing a graft and 'git gc --prune'ing gets rid of the old history. D'oh. Automatically installing grafts is wrong. Ciao, Dscho