Re: Git commit generation numbers
- From
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jul 28, 2011, 15:00 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAMP44s2F429MG5DeRAULnSgNkCwrVGPfC2HeFw=iHXPXjkw0yA@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CA+55aFzsZ6w_a_wPEuBjtDeSDYQviVfy9UmJMxPz4geu4CRthQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
Show 12 quoted lines
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> That is IF unknown headers are copied verbatim during rebase. For >> "encoding" header this is a good thing, for "generation" it isn't. > > Afaik, they aren't copied verbatim, and never have been. Afaik, the > only thing that has *ever* written commits is "commit_tree()" > (originally "main()" in commit-tree.c). Why is this red herring even > being discussed? > > Of course you can always generate bogus commits by writing them by > hand. But that's irrelevant.
Let's suppose for a moment that the commits do have these wrong generation numbers, shouldn't a fetch on the newer client check these and show an error? But what if they are pushed to a central server that has old version of git? It would be messy.
-- Felipe Contreras