On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 03:48:07PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > OK, so let's say we add generation headers to each commit. What happens > next? Are we going to convert algorithms that use timestamps to use > commit generations? How are we going to handle performance issues when > dealing with older parts of history that don't have generations? > > Again, those are serious questions that need answered. I respect that > you think the lack of a generation header is a design decision that > should be corrected. As I said before, I'm not 100% sure I agree, but > nor do I completely disagree (and I think it largely boils down to a > philosophical distinction, which I think you will agree should take a > backseat to real, practical concerns). But it's not 2005, and we have a > ton of history without generation numbers. So adding them now is only > one piece of the puzzle. > > What's your solution for the rest of it? I just read some of your later emails to others in the thread. It seems like your answer is "assume the timestamp-based limiting is good enough for old history". I'm OK with that. It obviously falls down in a few specific situations, but certainly has not been an unbearable problem for the past 5 years. -Peff -- 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