Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/5] Implement 'prior' commit object links (and other commit links ideas)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 04:34:36 -0400
sean <seanlkml@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.

Actually this implies that anyone pulling just this branch would potentially
also end up pulling large portions of other branches too.   So maybe making
them optional is The Right Thing.  In which case, we'd just have to accept 
these as weaker than the parentage links and fsck-objects et. al. would have 
to tolerate such missing commits.

So now that i've clearly come down in favor of both sides of this argument,
i'll leave the decision to smarter people than me.

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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]