On Fri, 19 May 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
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.
if/when shallow clones become available I would expect to see graft useage
climb significantly
David Lang
--
There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. And the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies.
-- C.A.R. Hoare
-
: 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