git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] replace: forbid replacing an object with one of a different type

From
Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch>
Date
Aug 28, 2013, 07:31 UTC
Message-ID
<878uzmclva.fsf@linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net>
In-Reply-To
<xmqqk3j6c1x0.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
Show 26 quoted lines
> Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org> writes:
>
>> Users replacing an object with one of a different type were not
>> prevented to do so, even if it was obvious, and stated in the doc,
>> that bad things would result from doing that.
>>
>> To avoid mistakes, it is better to just forbid that though.
>>
>> There is no case where one object can be replaced with one of a
>> different type while keeping the history valid, because:
>>
>> * Annotated tags contain the type of the tagged object.
>
> If you replace the tagged object and the tag at the same time,
> wouldn't that make the resulting history valid again?
>
> Granted, there may not be a strong reason to reuse the object name
> of the tagged object in such a case, but this "there may not be" is
> merely "I do not think of offhand", so I am not sure what workflow
> of other people we are breaking with this change.  A light-weight
> tag may already point at the tagged object (in other words, the
> object name of the tagged object is known to the outside world) and
> that could be a reason why you would need to reuse the object name
> of that object while changing its type.
>
> I dunno.

Hrm, you're right, that's a flaw in my logic. You could do the same in all other cases too, e.g. replace a tree so that an entry is of a different type and at the same time change the type of the object itself. You however have to carefully go through all objects that refer to the one that was replaced, and fix the type in all of them.

It still seems an extremely unsafe thing to do with trees: especially for small trees there is a small probability that you will generate the same tree again in the future (by having the same blobs in the directory again) and record it as a subtree or the 'tree' field of a commit. The history would then again be invalid.

Should we add a --force flag of some sort to allow the user to do this, while keeping the normal safety checks?

-- 
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
Previous: Junio C HamanoNext: Junio C Hamano
Message 4 of 13 in “Check replacement object type and minor updates”
  1. 0/5 Check replacement object type and minor updatesChristian Couder, Aug 27, 2013
  2. 1/5 replace: forbid replacing an object with one of a different typeChristian Couder, Aug 27, 2013
  3. Junio C HamanoAug 27, 2013
  4. Thomas RastAug 28, 2013
  5. Junio C HamanoAug 28, 2013
  6. Christian CouderAug 29, 2013
  7. Junio C HamanoAug 29, 2013
  8. Christian CouderAug 30, 2013
  9. Junio C HamanoAug 30, 2013
  10. 2/5 Documentation/replace: state that objects must be of the same typeChristian Couder, Aug 27, 2013
  11. 3/5 t6050-replace: test that objects are of the same typeChristian Couder, Aug 27, 2013
  12. 4/5 t6050-replace: add test to clean up all the replace refsChristian Couder, Aug 27, 2013
  13. 5/5 Documentation/replace: add Creating Replacement Objects sectionChristian Couder, Aug 27, 2013

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.