Martin Waitz <tali@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 04:10:50PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> However, if I recall correctly, it was rather nightmarish to
>> make this also work for reachability traversal necessary for
>> pack generation. It was painful enough even when the bind was
>> at the commit level (which was way simpler to handle), but to do
>> this the right way, the bind needs to be done at the tree level,
>> and "rev-list --objects foo..bar" would need some way to limit
>> the commit ancestry chain of subproject at the same time, by
>> computing the commit ancestry of the embedded commits in the
>> trees.
>
> This at least seems to work already.
> The UNINTERESTING flag is recursively set for the submodule
> commits while walking the object chain.
I think that is fine as long as we somehow enforce the topology
of submodule to be similar to the toplevel topology. Otherwise
I suspect it leads to unintuitive behaviour.
Suppose that the ancestry chain for the toplevel are A, A~1, A~2
and you asked for "A~2..A". A submodule is bound at tree "sub/"
and suppose A:sub/ == B, A~1:sub/ == C, and A~2:sub/ == D.
Now further suppose the ancestry chain for B, C and D are like
this:
o---C
/ \
...o---o---D---B
A naive implementation of "--objects A~2..A" would propagate
UNINTERESTING to D and mark B and C unmarked. Would it however
be reasonable to include commits marked as 'o'?
I am not trying to be negative here, but just raising things
that I did not think through when I tried to tackle it the last
time...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: 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