Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
...
quoted
... 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.
quoted
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?
Hi,
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
...
quoted
... 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.
Flattering always works :-)
quoted
quoted
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?
If your suspicion was that I did not really think it through, then you're
correct. Of course, I would have transferred _all_ refs anyway, since the
whole point of the exercise is to lose nothing.
However, I see where your argument is going.
Since Julian pointed out that there is a maildir patch for pine, I'll
probably go for that one, since it is hanging lower.
Ciao,
Dscho