On 21/07/2011 5:24 PM, Phil Hord wrote:
Maybe the confusion comes from the different storage mechanisms being
discussed. If the generation numbers are in a local cache and used by a
single client, the determinism of the specific numbers doesn't much
matter. If they are part of the commit, it still doesn't need to be
completely deterministic. However, interoperability requires standards,
and standards favor determinism, so dogmatic determinism may triumph in
that case.
1. gen(06) might make sense if you mean to implement --date-order using
gen-numbers, for example. But I don't think it's practical in any case.
2. gen(06)+1 might make sense if you mean to require that gen-numbers
are unique per repo. But this is both unsupportable and unnecessary, so
it's a non-starter.
3. gen(B)+1 is what you'd get from the the algorithm I saw proposed.
All three of these are provably correct by my definition of "correct":
"for each A in ancestors_of(B), gen(A) < gen(B)".
However, [1] and [2] have some extra features of dubious value. Simpler
is better for interoperability, so I like [3] for this purpose.
Even [3] has an extra feature I think is unnecessary: determinism. If
that "requirement" is dropped, I think all three of these algorithms are
(functionally) roughly equivalent.
I don't think everybody MEANT to be saying such
different things--that's just how they appeared on this end.
Now, did you mean something different by "commit number?"
I remain unconvinced that there is value in gen-number distribution, so
to my mind, the specific algorithm and whether or not it is
deterministic are unimportant.
The beauty of Git is that no two copies of a Git repository as a whole
are the same: some people make shallow copies; others prune away all
branches except for the one they are interested in; yet others graft
together multiple original repositories. The upshot is that two copies
of the same repository may end up having different commits as their root
commits, and so the generation numbers computed for their repositories
would be different. Indeed, the shallow repository copy could later be
filled out with additional underlying commits, and so on.
Given this context, I can't see the value in fixing generation numbers
within commits. In my mind generation numbers are extremely useful
transient helper objects in every Git repository but they have no
meaning outside that repository, sort of like GIT_WORK_TREE.
Peter
--
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