Re: Change set based shallow clone

> "Marco Costalba" <mcostalba@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On 9/9/06, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> The example is
> >>
> >>                     A           <--- tip of branch
> >>                    / \
> >>                   B   E
> >>                   |   |
> >>                   |   F
> >>                   | /
> >>                   C
> >>                   |
> >>                   D
> >>                 ...
> >>
> >
> > Ok now it' clear, thanks. But anyhow I think that it should be
> > possible to avoid the check and reordering on the receiver side.
> >
> > Suppose for a moment to split the graph drawing from the sequence
> > reordering problem, suppose for a moment that receiver does do not
> > draw the graph immediately.
> >
> > As you described, in our case git-rev-list sends the following sequence:
> > A, B, C, D, E, F
> >
> > instead git-rev-list --topo-order would have sent something like
> > A, E, F, B, C, D
> >
> > Now I ask, is it possible to have a sequence (without latency) like
> > A, B, C, D, (-3)E, (-3)F
> >
> > where, in case of not topological correct revisions, git-rev-list
> > gives the hint on the correct position in sequence (3 revs before in
> > our case) where the revision would have been if the sequence would
> > have been --topo-order ?
>
> When rev-list is writing E out, it does not know it is a
> descendant of something it already emitted (i.e. C) because it
> hasn't looked at F nor checked its parent yet.  So asking for
> (-3)F may be fine but I think (-3)E is just a fantasy.
>