From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:56:45 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Reflogs for deleted refs: fix breakage and suggest namespace change
Message-ID: <7v4nnwdt7m.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120821082719.GA13252@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> So in other words, I do not think any ultimate destination that I find
> palatable would be achievable without making the full format jump
> anyway. If all things were equal, I'd say there is no reason not to get
> as close as we can. But I find some of the proposals significantly less
> readable (in particular, the directory-munging is IMHO much harder to
> read). And it is not as if it is buying us anything; you still have to
> make a magic translation between a dead log and a live one.

Yes, that is where the earlier comment of mine on this topic came from.

> Another option I've considered is simply holding back the graveyard
> topic, working on the d/f tolerant storage, and then implementing the
> graveyards on top (which is basically free at that point). But as you
> note, it is not really a commonly-requested feature. If it were easy,
> I'd say let's do it. But the idea of bumping repositoryformatversion for
> the first time in git's history just to add a feature nobody wants is
> not very appealing to me.

Amen.