Re: Git commit generation numbers
- From
Phil Hord <hordp@cisco.com>
- Date
- Jul 21, 2011, 01:09 UTC
- Message-ID
- <4E277C2E.2020402@cisco.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <alpine.LFD.2.00.1107202041480.21187@xanadu.home>
On 07/20/2011 08:58 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
Show 16 quoted lines
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011, Phil Hord wrote: > >> On 07/20/2011 07:36 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: >>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011, david@lang.hm wrote: >>> >>>> If the generation number is part of the repository then it's going to >>>> be the same for everyone. >>> The actual generation number will be, and has to be, the same for >>> everyone with the same repository content, regardless of the cache used. >>> It is a well defined number with no room to interpretation. >> Nonsense. >> >> Even if the generation number is well-defined and shared by all clients, the >> only quasi-essential definition is "for each A in ancestors_of(B), gen(A)< >> gen(B)". > Sure. But what do you gain by making holes in the sequence?
Depends on the algorithm. Probably speed. Possibly more efficient limited-cache building (jit-style discovery in reverse, as-needed, for example).
What do you gain by enforcing contiguousness? Why not require all gen numbers to be even? Or prime? ;)
Show 9 quoted lines
>> In practice, the actual generation number *will be the same* for everyone with >> the same repository content, unless and until someone develops a different >> calculation method. But there is no reason to require that the number *has to >> be* the same for everyone unless you expect (or require) everyone to share >> their gen-caches. > And with the above you clearly reinforced the argument _against_ storing > the generation number in the commit object. If you can imagine a > different calculation method already, and if it is actually useful, then > who knows if something even better could be done eventually.
Good. Nice to see I'm being self-consistent, then.
Phil