Re: [PATCH] [BUG] Add a test to check git-prune does not throw away revs hidden by a graft.

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Date: May 19, 2006, 19:02 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605191159520.10823@g5.osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <20060519185558.GE6535@nowhere.earth>

On Fri, 19 May 2006, Yann Dirson wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 03:53:36PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Yann Dirson <ydirson@altern.org> writes:
> > 
> > > To make my point maybe more clear: if someone really wants to make a
> > > graft permanent, wouldn't some history rewriting ... be the
> > > way to go,...
> > 
> > Yes.
> 
> So if temporary usage is a typical use for grafts, don't we want to
> protect people using them from pruning ?  I got no feedback to my
> suggestion of changing the default behaviour, even to say it was a bad
> idea :)

I don't actually know how much grafts end up being used. Right now, the only really valid use I know about is to graft together the old kernel history kind of thing, and I suspect not a whole lot of people do that (I keep a separate kernel history tree around for when I need to look at it, and it doesn't happen all that often).

So I think the lack of feedback on the graft-related issue comes directly from that lack of graft usage.

We _could_ decide that fsck should just follow the "real parents" and the grafts _both_. That's the safe thing to do by default. Possibly with a flag to say "prefer one over the other", or even a "prefer which-ever exists".

		Linus