sxenos@xxxxxxxxxx writes: > +Detailed design > +=============== > +Obsolescence information is stored as a graph of meta-commits. A meta-commit is > +a specially-formatted merge commit that describes how one commit was created > +from others. > + > +Meta-commits look like this: > + > +$ git cat-file -p <example_meta_commit> > +tree 4b825dc642cb6eb9a060e54bf8d69288fbee4904 > +parent aa7ce55545bf2c14bef48db91af1a74e2347539a > +parent d64309ee51d0af12723b6cb027fc9f195b15a5e9 > +parent 7e1bbcd3a0fa854a7a9eac9bf1eea6465de98136 > +author Stefan Xenos <sxenos@xxxxxxxxx> 1540841596 -0700 > +committer Stefan Xenos <sxenos@xxxxxxxxx> 1540841596 -0700 > +parent-type content > +parent-type obsolete > +parent-type origin > + > +This says “commit aa7ce555 makes commit d64309ee obsolete. It was created by > +cherry-picking commit 7e1bbcd3”. > + > +The tree for meta-commits is always the empty tree whose hash matches > +4b825dc642cb6eb9a060e54bf8d69288fbee4904 exactly, but future versions of git may > +attach other trees here. For forward-compatibility fsck should ignore such trees > +if found on future repository versions. Similarly, current versions of git > +should always fill in an empty commit comment and tools like fsck should ignore > +the content of the commit comment if present in a future repository version. > +This will allow future versions of git to add metadata to the meta-commit > +comments or tree without breaking forwards compatibility. Am I correct to understand that the reason why a commit object is (ab|re)used to represent a meta-commit is because by doing so we would get connectivity (i.e. fetching & pushing would transfer all the associated objects along) for free, and by not representing it as a new and different object type, existing implementations can just pass them along without understanding what they are, and as long as these are not mixed as parts of the main history of the project (e.g. when enumerating commits that has aa7ce5 as its parents, because somebody else obsoleted aa7ce5 and you want to evolve anything that built on it, you do not want to mistake the above "meta" commit as a commit that is part of the ordinary history and rebuild on top of the new version of aa7ce5, which would lead to a disaster), everything would work just fine? Perhaps you'd use something like "presence of parent-type header marks that a commit is a meta-commit and not part of the main history". How are these meta commits anchored so that it won't be reclaimed by repack? I do not see any "parent" field used to chain them together, but I do not think we can afford to spend one ref per meta commit, as refs are not designed to point into each and every object in the repository. I have a moderately strong opposition against "origin" thing. If aa7ce555 replaces d664309ee, in order for the tool to be able to "evolve" other histories that build on top of d664309ee, it only needs the history between aa7ce555 and d664309ee and it would not matter how aa7ce555 was built relative to its parent. The user may have typed/developed it from scratch, the user may have borrowed 70% of its change from 7e1bbcd while remaining 30% was done from scratch, or it was a concatenation of the change made in 7e1bbcd and another commit. One half of my point being that we can do _without_ it, and in all cases, aa7ce555, if leaving the fact that it was derived from 7e1bbcd is so important, can mention that in its log message how it relates to the "origin" thing. And the other half is that while I consider the "origin" thing is unnecessary for the above reasons, having it means we need to not just transfer the history reading to aa7ce555 and d664309ee (which are necessary anyway while we have histories to transplant from d664309ee to aa7ce555) but also have to pull in the history leading to 7e1bbcd and we cannot discard it.
