Re: grafts+repack+prune = history at danger

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Graft is a local matter, but that does not mean it should
>> introduce inconsistencies.  It is a way to _locally_ change the
>> world view, and to give the consistent world view locally, not
>> only the commands you listed (fsck, prune, pack-objects) but
>> also log, rev-list and friends all should take grafts into
>> account, which is why losing B is the right thing to do if you
>> repack or prune.  In your altered world, B is not part of any
>> remaining history.
> 
> Here's my stance on it. Grafts should be a local matter. And they alter
> the world view, with a pronounciation on *view*. That's why I proposed
> that only log familiy of commands obey them[*]. And probably rev-list so
> that gitk et.al. have a way to obey them. And also the ref parser (so
> that master~20 is what it looks it is). Everything else should disregard
> grafts: repack, prune, fetch, <transfer>-pack, push etc. No nasty side
> effects anymore. No transfer of the grafts file needed. No clash when
> someone else has a different *view* of the world.