Re: [1/5] Parsing code in revision.h

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Date: Apr 17, 2005, 18:18 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0504171114020.7211@ppc970.osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0504171120400.30848-100000@iabervon.org>

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

>
> --- 45f926575d2c44072bfcf2317dbf3f0fbb513a4e/revision.h  (mode:100644 sha1:28d0de3261a61f68e4e0948a25a416a515cd2e83)
> +++ 37a0b01b85c2999243674d48bfc71cdba0e5518e/revision.h  (mode:100644 sha1:523bde6e14e18bb0ecbded8f83ad4df93fc467ab)
> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
>  	unsigned int flags;
>  	unsigned char sha1[20];
>  	unsigned long date;
> +	unsigned char tree[20];
>  	struct parent *parent;
>  };
>

I think this is really wrong.

The whole point of "revision.h" is that it's a generic framework for keeping track of relationships between different objects. And those objects are in no way just "commit" objects.

For example, fsck uses this "struct revision" to create a full free of _all_ the object dependencies, which means that a "struct revision" can be any object at all - it's not in any way limited to commit objects, and there is no "tree" object that is associated with these things at all.

Besides, why do you want the tree? There's really nothing you can do with the tree to a first approximation - you need to _first_ do the reachability analysis entirely on the commit dependencies, and then when you've selected a set of commits, you can just output those.

Later phases will indeed look up what the tree is, but that's only after you've decided on the commit object. There's no point in looking up (or even trying to just remember) _all_ the tree objects.

Hmm?

		Linus