Antoine Pelisse <apelisse@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> I am not sure I follow the above, but anyway, I think the patch does >> is safe because (1) future "fast-export" will not refer to these >> pruned objects in its output (we have decided that these pruned >> objects are not used anywhere in the history so nobody will refer to >> them) and (2) we still need to increment the id number so that later >> objects in the marks file get assigned the same id number as they >> were assigned originally (otherwise we will not name these objects >> consistently when we later talk about them). > > I fully agree on (1), not so much on (2) though. > ... > Both "commit mark :2" and "commit mark :3" end up being marked :2. > Any tool like git-remote-hg that is using a mapping from mark <-> hg changeset > could then fail. Yeah, I think I agree that you would need to make sure that the other side does not use the revision marked with :2, once you retire the object you originally marked with :2 by pruning. Shouldn't the second export show :1 and :3 but not :2? It feels like a bug in the exporter to me that the mark number is reused in such a case. -- 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