From: David Mansfield <david@cobite.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:21:52 GMT
Subject: Re: Handling renames.
Message-ID: <425EC2D0.2090904@cobite.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0504141124220.7211@ppc970.osdl.org>

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
>>there's no redundancy caused by this method: only renames (which are 
>>rare) go through the rename_commit redirection. (to speed up the lookup 
>>the rename_commit object could cache the offset of the two names within 
>>their tree objects.)
> 
> 

> 
> Some "higher level" thing can add its own rules _on_top_ of git rules. The
> same way we have normal applications having their _own_ rules on top of
> the kernel. You do abstraction in layers, but for this to work, the base 
> you build on top of had better be damn solid, and not have any ugly 
> special cases.
> 

Maybe you (or the group) should standardize on a way to 'extend' the 
commit 'object' in terms of:

the layer1 (git) header for commit object is defined as such-and-such
the layer2 (scm or other) header for commit object is defined as 
such-and-such

Much the way network protocols stack on top of each other.  If a 
standard way of stacking is defined, then it could be much cleaner for 
future implementors to understand a 'new' stacking protocol, and it will 
make the scm-level extensions easier to discuss it terms of their own 
'layer'.

David