From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jakub Narebski Subject: Re: Unresolved issues #2 Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 11:26:00 +0200 Organization: At home Message-ID: References: <7v64lcqz9j.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7v4q065hq0.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vwtd240e0.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu May 04 11:25:30 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 1Fba5Q-0002qh-I7 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 04 May 2006 11:25:28 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751458AbWEDJZU (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 May 2006 05:25:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751457AbWEDJZU (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 May 2006 05:25:20 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:22940 "EHLO ciao.gmane.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751458AbWEDJZS (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 May 2006 05:25:18 -0400 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Fba54-0002mV-A0 for git@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 04 May 2006 11:25:06 +0200 Received: from 193.0.122.19 ([193.0.122.19]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 04 May 2006 11:25:06 +0200 Received: from jnareb by 193.0.122.19 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 04 May 2006 11:25:06 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: git@vger.kernel.org X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.0.122.19 User-Agent: KNode/0.7.7 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jakub Narebski writes: > >>> I am beginning to think using "graft" to cauterize history >>> for this, while it technically would work, would not be so >>> helpful to users, so the design needs to be worked out again. >> >> Perhaps use comment for marking graft as cauterizing history? > > ? For example: # begin shallow clone # no parents... - cut-off commit ... # end shallow clone I don't think it is very good idea, though... >> There was also talk about proposed git-splithist, which would move some >> of the history to other (historical, archive) repository. > > I stayed out from that discussion, but my impression was that > you could essentially do the same thing as what Linus did when > he started the recent kernel history since v2.6.12-rc2 without > any tool support. > > The older kernel history from BKCVS was resurrected later by > independent parties and Linus's history can be grafted onto it, > but if you have an existing history stored in git, you could do: > (1) take a snapshot of the tip of your development with "git > tar-tree HEAD"; (2) extract it into an empty repository and > start a new history; (3) build on top of the truncated history; > and (4) graft that onto the history that stopped at (1), which > you tentatively abandoned, as needed. I have thought about splitting not at current tip(s), but for example at 1 year ago. Current repository would have history cautherized using grafts (although it would be nice to have option to omit grafts and reach to historic repository), and archive/history repository ending with commits up to (but not including) the cut-off (cauterization) points. IIRC the problem with 'shallow clone' was telling which commits the clone has, and how to join commits and recauterize history. -- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland