On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 Isn't the "failing safe" only true if the client disconnects when a server doesn't advertise "i understand gitrefs"? So couldn't we, as part of the rules for reachability advertise a capability that does a similar thing and fails safe as well? Thanks. Jake