Petr Baudis wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:35:18AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>But that is irrelevant. If you already have the objects, whether to
>follow the origin link does not matter at all.
>I argue that the following the origin link by one step is harmful as it
>violated the internal Git object model and does not have real benefits.
>If you want to have the origin links, do not follow them at all - the
>commit objects themselves are not useful. (Or, optionally, follow them
>fully - that of course can make sense.)
The origin links are rarely followed, not even by one step. They are
only followed if a certain operation requires them (not a lot do).
>> > And why are the notes created by git cherry-pick -x insufficient for that?
>> For example, these notes (or the ones created by "git revert") are
>> *wrong* because they talk about commits instead of changesets (deltas
>> between two commits).
>(BTW, I don't feel strongly enough about the header-freeform distinction
>to argue about it and some of your and others' points are good. But even
>if we have the origin links, I think we should only follow them not at
>all or fully.)
Maybe we have a misunderstanding about what "follow a link" means and
when it is done.
During most normal git operation, the origin links are just read, but
not followed.
The only commands that I expect to follow them are log --graph, gitk, fsck
and blame. I may have missed some corner use-cases, but this should
cover most of it; i.e. most of git ignores them or just makes note of
the hashvalues provided.
--
Sincerely,
Stephen R. van den Berg.
"Am I paying for this abuse or is it extra?"
--
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
