Re: Change set based shallow clone

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Sep 10, 2006, 04:13 UTC
Message-ID: <7vpse4uzos.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <e5bfff550609092049t5e016cacr2502ce81bbb6489e@mail.gmail.com>

"Marco Costalba" <mcostalba@gmail.com> writes:

Show 36 quoted lines

> On 9/9/06, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
>>
>> The example is
>>
>>                     A           <--- tip of branch
>>                    / \
>>                   B   E
>>                   |   |
>>                   |   F
>>                   | /
>>                   C
>>                   |
>>                   D
>>                 ...
>>
>
> Ok now it' clear, thanks. But anyhow I think that it should be
> possible to avoid the check and reordering on the receiver side.
>
> Suppose for a moment to split the graph drawing from the sequence
> reordering problem, suppose for a moment that receiver does do not
> draw the graph immediately.
>
> As you described, in our case git-rev-list sends the following sequence:
> A, B, C, D, E, F
>
> instead git-rev-list --topo-order would have sent something like
> A, E, F, B, C, D
>
> Now I ask, is it possible to have a sequence (without latency) like
> A, B, C, D, (-3)E, (-3)F
>
> where, in case of not topological correct revisions, git-rev-list
> gives the hint on the correct position in sequence (3 revs before in
> our case) where the revision would have been if the sequence would
> have been --topo-order ?

When rev-list is writing E out, it does not know it is a descendant of something it already emitted (i.e. C) because it hasn't looked at F nor checked its parent yet. So asking for (-3)F may be fine but I think (-3)E is just a fantasy.