Re: [RFC] origin link for cherry-pick and revert, and more about porcelain-level metadata

From: Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>
Date: Sep 10, 2008, 10:44 UTC
Message-ID: <20080910104424.GH10360@machine.or.cz>
In-Reply-To: <48C794D6.20001@gnu.org>

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:35:18AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> 
> > Why do you actually *follow* the origin link at all anyway? Without its
> > parents, the associated tree etc., the object is essentially useless for
> > you
> 
> Stephen posed the origin links as weak, but it is not necessarily true
> that you don't have the parents and the associated tree.  For example,
> if you download a repository that includes a "master" branch and a few
> stable branches, you *will* have the objects cherry-picked into stable
> branches, because they are commits in the master branch.

But that is irrelevant. If you already have the objects, whether to follow the origin link does not matter at all.

I argue that the following the origin link by one step is harmful as it violated the internal Git object model and does not have real benefits. If you want to have the origin links, do not follow them at all - the commit objects themselves are not useful. (Or, optionally, follow them fully - that of course can make sense.)

Show 5 quoted lines

> > And why are the notes created by git cherry-pick -x insufficient for that?
> 
> For example, these notes (or the ones created by "git revert") are
> *wrong* because they talk about commits instead of changesets (deltas
> between two commits).

(BTW, I don't feel strongly enough about the header-freeform distinction to argue about it and some of your and others' points are good. But even if we have the origin links, I think we should only follow them not at all or fully.)

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
The next generation of interesting software will be done
on the Macintosh, not the IBM PC.  -- Bill Gates