git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [PATCH] Make reflog query '@{1219188291}' act as '@{2008/08/19 16:24:51}'

From
Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>
Date
Aug 20, 2008, 20:09 UTC
Message-ID
<20080820200912.GG16626@blimp.local>
In-Reply-To
<20080820200026.GK3483@spearce.org>
Shawn O. Pearce, Wed, Aug 20, 2008 22:00:26 +0200:
Show 15 quoted lines
> Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Shawn O. Pearce, Wed, Aug 20, 2008 21:44:07 +0200:
> > > 
> > > We could pick any number for the limit, just so long as its so
> > > large that the size of the reflog for it to be a valid @{nth}
> > > request would be something like 1 TB, and thus be highly unlikely.
> > > 
> > > I was just trying to be cute by using the original commit timestamp
> > > of Git itself.  Perhaps 12936648 (1TB / 83)?
> > 
> > How about the maximum value the platform's size_t can handle?
> 
> So on 64 bit platforms we need to wait for another 2.92277266
> x10^10 years before we will ever see a seconds-since-epoch which
> can't possibly be mistaken for a position in the relfog file?
It is just a timestamp. Can be set to anything.
Show 7 quoted lines
> > Not because it is "highly unlikely", but because you and me frankly
> > have no idea exactly how unlikely for example a "12936648 terabytes" is?
> 
> I have half a brain.  Creating 12 million reflog entries would
> typically require 12 million git-update-ref forks. Anyone who is
> doing that many since reflog was introduced and has not yet truncated
> their reflog _really_ should reconsider what they are using it for.

Why? It may just as well work (unless there are some other, more technical restrictions).

> Evaluating foo@{12936648} will be _horribly_ expensive.  Anyone who

Depends what you evaluate it on. 640kb was also more than enough for anyone once.

Show 5 quoted lines
> is waiting for that result and _cares_ about it would have already
> started asking on the list for a reflog which is not based on a
> flat file.  If they have already patched their Git to use something
> else (e.g. gdbm) I have no pity for them when this changes/breaks
> as they clearly have already patched their Git rather heavily.
Why should you _care_?
Previous: Shawn O. PearceNext: Junio C Hamano
Message 8 of 10 in “Make reflog query '@{1219188291}' act as '@{2008/08/19 16:24:51}'”
  1. Make reflog query '@{1219188291}' act as '@{2008/08/19 16:24:51}'Shawn O. Pearce, Aug 19, 2008
  2. Junio C HamanoAug 19, 2008
  3. Shawn O. PearceAug 20, 2008
  4. Alex RiesenAug 20, 2008
  5. Shawn O. PearceAug 20, 2008
  6. Alex RiesenAug 20, 2008
  7. Shawn O. PearceAug 20, 2008
  8. Alex RiesenAug 20, 2008
  9. Junio C HamanoAug 20, 2008
  10. Shawn O. PearceAug 21, 2008

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.