Re: [PATCH 0/2] Controversial blob munging series

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > ...
> >> ... I am inclined to think that this is quite fundamental.  I
> >> think you just fell into category who want "extended semantics"
> >> Linus talked about in $gmane/45214:
> >> 
> >>   I suspect that this gets some complaining off our back, but I *also* 
> >>   suspect that people will actually end up really screwing themselves with 
> >>   something like this and then blaming us and causing a huge pain down the 
> >>   line when we've supported this and people want "extended semantics" that 
> >>   are no longer clean.
> >> 
> >> which is kind of dissapointing.
> 
> I think this was the biggest worry.  If even Dscho, who is among
> a dozen people with the most intimate knowledge of git on the
> planet, gets it wrong, I can almost guarantee that we will get
> into the mess Linus predicted above.

> >> Even if you somehow solved the issue of "stat" rule, I do not
> >> know what your plans are to manage the blobs that you drop in
> >> the object store.  The list of object names in the mail-index
> >> file you are generating do not count as connectivity for the
> >> purpose of fetch/push/fsck/prune.
> >
> > I had the idea to update a ref, which holds "trees" of message-id -> blob 
> > pairs, and get updated at the same time.
> 
> I somehow thought this mailbox thing was because you wanted to
> transfer mailboxes across repositories.  How would you prevent
> that ref from getting out of sync with the mail-index file git
> knows nothing about its involvement in connectivity?