From: Joel Becker Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 03:30:38 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFD] Add repoid identifier to commit Message-ID: <20050512033037.GF1185@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <4282ADC9.2010900@zytor.com> On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 06:13:45PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > What I meant with that is I think .git/repoid is the right thing, if the > file doesn't exist a new ID file is generated. Count me in the "what does repoid help?" camp. If we create a new UUID on each clone, imagine this typical usage: linux-2.6.git has repoid AAAAAA. I clone it locally, local-2.6-clean, repoid BBBBBB I clone the local one, local-2.6-working, repoid CCCCCC I work in the local one and commit my change. commit abcd, repoid CCCCCC. I then rsync, copy, or clone that working repository to some place that Linus can pull from. I then throw away the copy with repoid CCCCCC, because I'm done with that temporary work area. lather, rinse, repeat. IOW, each of my changes, if I work like this, has a different repoid. And when a problem arises, the repoid tells us diddly. I thought one of the tenents of bk/git/codeville/whatever development is that clone is the way to do any temporary area. You work in a clone or 10, and then clean up for submission. Which of the 10 clones is the associated repoid seems, well, unimporant. Joel -- Life's Little Instruction Book #99 "Think big thoughts, but relish small pleasures." Joel Becker Senior Member of Technical Staff Oracle E-mail: joel.becker@oracle.com Phone: (650) 506-8127