On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 12:20:45AM +0200, Yann Dirson wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 02:46:16PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > > Is it/does it?
> > >
> > > I'd assume that if you have a graft, you _want_ the history to be hidden
> > > and pruned.
> > >
> > > That's how you'd drop history, if you wanted to do it on purpose.
> >
> > I haven't looked at what the test does, but I think he is
> > talking about the opposite. fsck by design does not honor
> > grafts, and if you grafted a history back to your true root
> > commit, that "older" history will be lost.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. AFACT fsck does not
> ignore grafts: if a rev is not accessible from heads because of a
> graft, prune drops it, and fsck does not see a problem.
>
> Linus, I understand your point, but the current situation is
> problematic: a graft does not get propagated by cg-clone (and I
> suppose not by git-clone or git-fetch either), so cloning a tree which
> has undergone such a pruning operation results in an incomplete clone
> (indeed it is how I met the problem). Since grafts are supposed to
> have local effect only (as far as I understand), I see it as a bad
> indication to have such a remote effect.
To make my point maybe more clear: if someone really wants to make a
graft permanent, wouldn't some history rewriting (eg. with
cg-admin-rewritehist, but see the patch I posted against it) be the
way to go, instead of relying on out-of-band transfer of graft data ?
--
Yann Dirson <ydirson@xxxxxxxxxx> |
Debian-related: <dirson@xxxxxxxxxx> | Support Debian GNU/Linux:
| Freedom, Power, Stability, Gratis
http://ydirson.free.fr/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/>
-
: 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