Re: Supressing sorting of trees

From: Salvatore Mangano <smangano@into-technology.com>
Date: Oct 12, 2009, 20:02 UTC
Message-ID: <DF65B4B0-62B1-4469-99E1-3305434F9D59@into-technology.com>
In-Reply-To: <46a038f90910121236x6bbe258bwa3bc3fdcc54de524@mail.gmail.com>

On Oct 12, 2009, at 3:36 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote:

Show 19 quoted lines

> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Sal Mangano
> <smangano@into-technology.com> wrote:
>> 2) I can use Git unchanged but preserve order by storing some  
>> information in
>> each sub tree (e.g. an extra blob) which retains the real order. I  
>> can also
>
> This #2 is your best bet by far. An extra blob in each subdir is just
> one option, you can handle this "extra metadata" in a number of ways
> -- maybe external to git, on a separate history will work best.
>
> The downsides of messing with internal tree handling of git are so
> staggering that you'd do better to throw git away.
>
> (this is from experience of abusing git to various purposes that have
> little to do with version control :-) )
>
> In other words: Shaun and Dscho are right, so right that it hurts.
>

Thanks Martin. I suspect you, Shaun and Dscho are correct. But, can anyone point to specific code that would allow me to see first hand that this is hopeless. So far, based on the code I looked at, I see it as problematic but not hopeless. Here I define "problematic" as having to change a few files and/or avoid using some features while "hopeless" meaning I'd have to change almost very single plumbing command.