On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:14:56PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I've been toying with an idea for an alternative solution, and need
> somebody competent to bounce it around with.
Well, unfortunately for you, you are stuck with me. ;P
> Here is my work in progress. It introduces "ignore-missing-negative"
> option to the revision traversal machinery, and squelches the places we
> currently complain loudly and die when we expect an object to be
> available, when the color we are going to paint the object with is
> UNINTERESTING.
>
> I have a mild suspicion that it may even be the right thing to ignore them
> unconditionally, and it might even match the intention of Linus's original
> code. That would make many hunks in this patch much simpler.
I'm not sure it is a good idea to do so unconditionally. In the case of
negatives for transferring files, a missed negative is simply a missed
opportunity for optimizing the resulting pack.
But in other cases, it silently gives you the wrong answer. For
example, consider a history like:
C--D
/
A--B
\
E--F
now let's suppose I have everything except 'E'. If I ask for
git rev-list F..D
then it will not realize that A and B are uninteresting, and I will get
A-B-C-D. I think it is much better for git to complain loudly that it
could not compute the correct answer.
Am I understanding the issue correctly?
-Peff
--
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
