Re: [PATCH] [BUG] Add a test to check git-prune does not throw away revs hidden by a graft.

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: May 19, 2006, 22:22 UTC
Message-ID: <7v4pzlirje.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605191159520.10823@g5.osdl.org>

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:

Show 15 quoted lines

> On Fri, 19 May 2006, Yann Dirson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 03:53:36PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> > Yann Dirson <ydirson@altern.org> writes:
>> > 
>> > > To make my point maybe more clear: if someone really wants to make a
>> > > graft permanent, wouldn't some history rewriting ... be the
>> > > way to go,...
>> > 
>> > Yes.
>> 
>> So if temporary usage is a typical use for grafts, don't we want to
>> protect people using them from pruning ?  I got no feedback to my
>> suggestion of changing the default behaviour, even to say it was a bad
>> idea :)

I just gave a terse "Yes" because I agree with Yann that if really a permanent history rewriting is needed it should be done by history rewriting not with graft (I do not necessarily encourage people to rewrite history but if somebody wants to, that is).

> We _could_ decide that fsck should just follow the "real parents" and the 
> grafts _both_. That's the safe thing to do by default. Possibly with a 
> flag to say "prefer one over the other", or even a "prefer which-ever 
> exists".

I agree with everything Linus said about the current grafts usage. My vote for fsck is to make it default to follow both by default for safety, and perhaps an optional --ignore-graft flag.