On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> If we aren't going to go whole-hog on generation numbers, I'm much more
> tempted to simply keep using commit timestamps.
Sure. I think it's entirely reasonable to say that the issue basically
boils down to one git question: "can commit X be an ancestor of commit
Y" (as a way to basically limit certain algorithms from having to walk
all the way down). We've used commit dates for it, and realistically
it really has worked very well. But it was always a broken heuristic.
So yes, I personally see generation counters as a way to do the commit
date comparisons right. And it would be perfectly fine to just say "if
there are no generation numbers, we'll use the datestamps instead, and
know that they could be incorrect".
That "use the datestamps" fallback thing may well involve all the
heuristics we already do (ie check for the stamps looking sane, and
not trusting just one individual one).
Linus
--
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