On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 09:43:33 +0200 Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Perhaps there should be an option to specify that the link is optional, and > the object pointed can be gone missing. For example for cherrypick the > original cherry-picked commit can either be removed completely, e.g. when > the original branch is deleted, or it can be modified breaking link when we > rewrite history up to original commit on original branch. > > Also all other commands which show commit (commit messsage at least) should > be considered for including "related" links... If you're cherry-picking from a disposable branch, then you don't want to include a link to it in your new commit. Once you include the link, the source commit should be protected from pruning just like any other piece of history. Otherwise there's no way for fsck-objects to know if a missing object means corruption or not. So you need a way at commit time to request the explicit linkage. This might be useful for bug tracking front ends that could automatically show a hot fix migrating from devel, to testing, to release branches. With Junio's proposal, perhaps there's even a better keyword for these particular linkages. Sean. - : send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html