On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 09:21:58PM +0100, Christian Couder wrote: > On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 01:45:27PM +0100, Christian Couder wrote: > >> And with what Peff says above it looks like we will need ways > >> configure and tweak commit reachability with gitlink/gitref anyway. So > >> the point of gitref compared to gitlink would be that they just have a > >> different reachability by default. But couldn't that be replaced by a > >> default rule saying that when a gitlink is reached "this way or that > >> way" then the commit reachability should be enforced, and otherwise it > >> should not be? > > > > Any version of git unaware of that rule, though, would consider objects > > only reachable by gitlink as unreachable and delete them, causing data > > loss. Likewise for a server not aware of that rule. And a server > > unaware of that rule would not supply those objects to a client pulling > > such a branch. > > Yeah, so you would really need an up-to-date server and client to > store the git-series data. > But anyway if we create a gitref object, you would also need > up-to-date servers and clients to make it work. Agreed, but gitrefs have the advantage of failing safe, rather than failing with dataloss. - Josh Triplett