Re: Git commit generation numbers

From: Drew Northup <drew.northup@maine.edu>
Date: Jul 21, 2011, 15:57 UTC
Message-ID: <1311263869.9745.72.camel@drew-northup.unet.maine.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20110721125544.26006.qmail@science.horizon.com>

On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 08:55 -0400, George Spelvin wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> > I have not read yet one discussion about how generation numbers [baked
> > into a commit] deal with rebasing, for instance. Do we assign one more
> > than the revision prior to the base of the rebase operation or do we
> > start with the revision one after the highest of those original commits
> > included in the rebase? Depending on how that is done
> > _drastically_different_ numbers can come out of different repository
> > instances for the same _final_ DAG. This is one major reason why, as I
> > see it, local storage is good for generation numbers and putting them in
> > the commit is bad. 
> 
> Er, no.  Whenever a new commit object is generated (as the result
> of a rebase or not), its commit number is computed based on its
> parent commits.  It is NEVER copied.

I don't see the word "copy" in my original.

B-O1-O2-O3-O4-O5-O6
 \
  R1----R2-------R3

What's the correct generation number for R3? I would say gen(B)+3. My reading of the posts made by some others was that they thought gen(O6) was the correct answer. Still others seemed to indicate gen(O6)+1 was the correct answer. I don't think everybody MEANT to be saying such different things--that's just how they appeared on this end.

Now, did you mean something different by "commit number?"

-- 
-Drew Northup
________________________________________________
"As opposed to vegetable or mineral error?"
-John Pescatore, SANS NewsBites Vol. 12 Num. 59