Re: git-rev-list in local commit order

From: Sean <seanlkml@sympatico.ca>
Date: May 16, 2005, 21:25 UTC
Message-ID: <1629.10.10.10.24.1116278725.squirrel@linux1>
In-Reply-To: <1116195235.11872.213.camel@tglx>

On Sun, May 15, 2005 6:13 pm, Thomas Gleixner said:

> Last try.
>
> A repository Id makes it possible to identify workflows in and across
> repositories.

Sorry, your proposal falls short, accurate work flow would allow you to show every repository a commit passed through on the way to its final destination. Your proposal does not allow that; as discussed. Nor does it handle multiple projects or branches within a single repository.

As noted by others, using git often means the creation of temporary repositories, hardly something that deserves an identifier. Git, by design, doesn't give a hoot about individual repositories.

And you also haven't addressed what to do when someone else uses say, Linus' repoid, as their own. It seems like a risk to have the operation of each repository depend on a value anyone else can duplicate. Linus can't control what repoid everyone else uses, he can control the time on his own machine. Unique repoid's are an illusion.

> This information is valuable for me and others due to already discussed
> reasons.

Why should everyone else manage repoids in their own personal repository for you; what value will _they_ get out of it?

> I accept that is irrelevant for you.

Personally I don't really care either way. But you haven't given one real example where it is actually needed to do useful work. Making pretty graphs on a web page doesn't count if they're not useful to anyone. You shouldn't force everyone else to manage repoid's unless there is some value for _them_.

If you're still going to pursue this, at least make sure repoid is not mandatory. If a local repository identifier isn't defined, don't create a repoid line in the commits.

Sean