On Fri, 19 May 2006, Yann Dirson wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 03:53:36PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Yann Dirson <ydirson@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > To make my point maybe more clear: if someone really wants to make a > > > graft permanent, wouldn't some history rewriting ... be the > > > way to go,... > > > > Yes. > > So if temporary usage is a typical use for grafts, don't we want to > protect people using them from pruning ? I got no feedback to my > suggestion of changing the default behaviour, even to say it was a bad > idea :) I don't actually know how much grafts end up being used. Right now, the only really valid use I know about is to graft together the old kernel history kind of thing, and I suspect not a whole lot of people do that (I keep a separate kernel history tree around for when I need to look at it, and it doesn't happen all that often). So I think the lack of feedback on the graft-related issue comes directly from that lack of graft usage. We _could_ decide that fsck should just follow the "real parents" and the grafts _both_. That's the safe thing to do by default. Possibly with a flag to say "prefer one over the other", or even a "prefer which-ever exists". Linus - : 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