Hello,
"Abhishek Kumar via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> From: Abhishek Kumar <abhishekkumar8222@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> With generation data chunk and corrected commit dates implemented, let's
> update the technical documentation for commit-graph.
>
> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Kumar <abhishekkumar8222@xxxxxxxxx>
All right.
> ---
> .../technical/commit-graph-format.txt | 12 ++---
> Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt | 45 ++++++++++++-------
> 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/technical/commit-graph-format.txt b/Documentation/technical/commit-graph-format.txt
> index 440541045d..71c43884ec 100644
> --- a/Documentation/technical/commit-graph-format.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/technical/commit-graph-format.txt
> @@ -4,11 +4,7 @@ Git commit graph format
> The Git commit graph stores a list of commit OIDs and some associated
> metadata, including:
>
> -- The generation number of the commit. Commits with no parents have
> - generation number 1; commits with parents have generation number
> - one more than the maximum generation number of its parents. We
> - reserve zero as special, and can be used to mark a generation
> - number invalid or as "not computed".
> +- The generation number of the commit.
All right, that was duplicated information. Now that we need to talk
about two of them, it would not make sense to duplicate that.
>
> - The root tree OID.
>
> @@ -88,6 +84,12 @@ CHUNK DATA:
Shouldn't we also replace 'generation number' occurences in description
of the Commit Data (CDAT) chunk with either 'topological level' or
'generation number v1'?
> 2 bits of the lowest byte, storing the 33rd and 34th bit of the
> commit time.
>
> + Generation Data (ID: {'G', 'D', 'A', 'T' }) (N * 4 bytes) [Optional]
It is not exactly 'optional', as it implies that we need to turn it on
(or that we can turn it off). It is more 'conditional', as it can be
not present due to outside influences (mixed-version environment).
> + * This list of 4-byte values store corrected commit date offsets for the
> + commits, arranged in the same order as commit data chunk.
I have just realized purely theoretical, but possible, problem with
storing non-monotinic generation number related values like corrected
commit date offset in constrained space. There are problems with
clamping them.
Say that somewhere in the ancestry chain there is a commit A with commit
date far in the future by mistake, for example 2120-08-22; it is
important for that date to be not able to be represented using uint32_t.
Say that a later descendant commit B is malformed, and has committer
date of 0, that is 1970-01-01. This means that the corrected commit date
for B must be larger than 2120-08-22 - which for this commit means that
corrected commit date offset do not fit in 32 bits, and must be clamped
(replaced) with GENERATION_NUMBER_V2_OFFSET_MAX.
Say that we have commit C that is child of B, and it has correct commit
date. Because of mistake in commit A, it has corrected commit date of
more than 2120-08-22 (corrected commit date degenerated into topological
level plus constant).
Now C can reach B, and B can reach A. However, if we recover corrected
commit date of B out of its date=0 and offset=GENERATION_NUMBER_V2_OFFSET_MAX
we get a number that is smaller than correct corrected commit date. We
will have
gen(A) > date(B) + offset(B) < gen(C)
Which breaks reachability condition guarantee.
If instead we use GENERATION_NUMBER_V2_MAX for commits with clamped
corrected commit date, that is offset=GENERATION_NUMBER_V2_OFFSET_MAX,
we would get
gen(A) < GENERATION_NUMBER_V2_MAX > gen(C)
And again reachability condition is broken.
This is a very contrived but possible example. This shouldn't happen,
but ufortunately it can happen.
The question is how to deal with this issue. Ignore it as unlikely?
Switch to storing corrected commit date, which is monotonic, so if there
is commit with GENERATION_NUMBER_V2_MAX, then subsequent descendant
commits will also have GENERATION_NUMBER_V2_MAX -- and pay with up to 7%
larger commit-graph file?
> + * This list can be later modified to store future generation number related
> + data.
How can it be later modified? There is no header, no version number.
How would we add another generation number data?
> +
> Extra Edge List (ID: {'E', 'D', 'G', 'E'}) [Optional]
> This list of 4-byte values store the second through nth parents for
> all octopus merges. The second parent value in the commit data stores
> diff --git a/Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt b/Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt
> index 808fa30b99..f27145328c 100644
> --- a/Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt
> @@ -38,14 +38,27 @@ A consumer may load the following info for a commit from the graph:
>
> Values 1-4 satisfy the requirements of parse_commit_gently().
>
> -Define the "generation number" of a commit recursively as follows:
> +There are two definitions of generation number:
> +1. Corrected committer dates
> +2. Topological levels
Should we add versioning info, that is:
+1. Corrected committer dates (generation number v2)
+2. Topological levels (generation number v1)
> +
> +Define "corrected committer date" of a commit recursively as follows:
> +
> + * A commit with no parents (a root commit) has corrected committer date
> + equal to its committer date.
> +
> + * A commit with at least one parent has corrected committer date equal to
> + the maximum of its commiter date and one more than the largest corrected
> + committer date among its parents.
> +
> +Define the "topological level" of a commit recursively as follows:
>
> * A commit with no parents (a root commit) has generation number one.
Shouldn't this be
* A commit with no parents (a root commit) has topological level of one.
>
> - * A commit with at least one parent has generation number one more than
> - the largest generation number among its parents.
> + * A commit with at least one parent has topological level one more than
> + the largest topological level among its parents.
>
> -Equivalently, the generation number of a commit A is one more than the
> +Equivalently, the topological level of a commit A is one more than the
> length of a longest path from A to a root commit. The recursive definition
> is easier to use for computation and observing the following property:
We should probably explicitly state that the property state applies to
both versions of generation number, not only to topological level.
>
> @@ -67,17 +80,12 @@ numbers, the general heuristic is the following:
> If A and B are commits with commit time X and Y, respectively, and
> X < Y, then A _probably_ cannot reach B.
>
> -This heuristic is currently used whenever the computation is allowed to
> -violate topological relationships due to clock skew (such as "git log"
> -with default order), but is not used when the topological order is
> -required (such as merge base calculations, "git log --graph").
> -
To be overly pedantic, this heuristic is still used, but now in much
more rare case. In addition to what is stated above, at least one layer
in the split commit-graph chain must have been generated by "Old" Git,
for the date heuristic to be used.
But that might be unnecessary level of detail.
> In practice, we expect some commits to be created recently and not stored
> in the commit graph. We can treat these commits as having "infinite"
> generation number and walk until reaching commits with known generation
> number.
>
> -We use the macro GENERATION_NUMBER_INFINITY = 0xFFFFFFFF to mark commits not
> +We use the macro GENERATION_NUMBER_INFINITY to mark commits not
All right.
> in the commit-graph file. If a commit-graph file was written by a version
> of Git that did not compute generation numbers, then those commits will
> have generation number represented by the macro GENERATION_NUMBER_ZERO = 0.
> @@ -93,12 +101,11 @@ fully-computed generation numbers. Using strict inequality may result in
> walking a few extra commits, but the simplicity in dealing with commits
> with generation number *_INFINITY or *_ZERO is valuable.
>
> -We use the macro GENERATION_NUMBER_MAX = 0x3FFFFFFF to for commits whose
> -generation numbers are computed to be at least this value. We limit at
> -this value since it is the largest value that can be stored in the
> -commit-graph file using the 30 bits available to generation numbers. This
> -presents another case where a commit can have generation number equal to
> -that of a parent.
> +We use the macro GENERATION_NUMBER_MAX for commits whose generation numbers
> +are computed to be at least this value. We limit at this value since it is
> +the largest value that can be stored in the commit-graph file using the
> +available to generation numbers. This presents another case where a
> +commit can have generation number equal to that of a parent.
All right, though it could have been done without re-wrapping, so that
only first line would be marked as changed.
As I wrote, there is theoretical problem with this for offsets.
>
> Design Details
> --------------
> @@ -267,6 +274,12 @@ The merge strategy values (2 for the size multiple, 64,000 for the maximum
> number of commits) could be extracted into config settings for full
> flexibility.
>
> +We also merge commit-graph chains when we try to write a commit graph with
> +two different generation number definitions as they cannot be compared directly.
> +We overwrite the existing chain and create a commit-graph with the newer or more
> +efficient defintion. For example, overwriting topological levels commit graph
> +chain to create a corrected commit dates commit graph chain.
> +
This is more complicated than that.
I think we should explicitly state that Git ensures that in split
commit-graph chain, if there are layers without the GDAT chunk (that
force Git to use topological levels for generation numbers), then they
are top layers. So if there is commit-graph file created by "Old" Git,
then when addig new layer it would also be GDAT-less.
Now how to write this...
> ## Deleting graph-{hash} files
>
> After a new tip file is written, some `graph-{hash}` files may no longer
Best,
--
Jakub Narębski
