Re: [PATCH 2/2] transport-helper: update remote helper namespace

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 11, 2013, 05:18 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s1LF46VU0E4W=r-qog3JY+Y-qyYGfkqxLEnTG8X8GoWOA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130411050509.GC27795@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:53:38PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>> > But if we push some commits to the helper, moving Y up to Z, then it
>> > would build the new commit (which contains the foreign-vcs's equivalent of
>> > Y..Z) on top of Z, not Y.
>>
>> Why would it do that? If X points to say revision 100, presumably it
>> was stored somewhere while doing a fetch. Similarly, if foreign
>> version of Z is 150, it can update that number while doing a push. The
>> next fetch it would start from 151.
>
> I think the only reason not to bump the marker forward during the push
> would be if the helper wants for some reason to "re-import" from the
> foreign source rather than accepting the git versions of the commits.
> Something like git-svn's markup of the commit messages with revision ids
> comes to mind.

Yeah, but that's already a second level hypothesis. First, remote-helpers would need to be able to work without marks, and they can't.

> But if it matters, then by definition that would mean
> that the import/export is not bidirectionally clean.

I don't see how would that matter.

> So I can buy the argument that bumping it forward ourselves will not
> matter for any well-implemented helper.

Or any helper.

> That is the sort of thing that might be helpful to include in the commit
> message; if somebody does run across such a helper and bisects to your
> commit, then they can understand the rationale for the decision.

If it did matter, it would be mentioned. I will updated it later if there's no further comments.

-- Felipe Contreras