Re: Git commit generation numbers

Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] writes:

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Jeff King [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

There's also one other issue with generation numbers. How do you handle
grafts and object-replacement refs?  If you graft history, your embedded
generation numbers will all be junk, and you can't trust them.

So I don't think this is a real problem in practice.

Grafts are already unreliable. You cannot sanely merge over a graft,
and it has nothing to do with generation numbers.

I'm actually sorry that we ever did grafting. It's fundamentally
broken, and can actually destroy your repository (by hiding real
parents and then causing the commits to get garbage collected). So I
don't think grafting should be used as an argument for or against
anything - it's a hack that breaks some fundamental git database
constraints.

What about object-replacement refs (i.e. "git replace" and refs/replace/)?

This is modern replacement for grafts mechanism, which is safe against
garbage collecting, and contrary to grafts it is transferable (as a ref).

With replacement objects (e.g. to repair some fragment of history to
make it bisectable - I think that was original idea behind introducing
git-replace, or instead of grafts to join with historical repository -
IIRC the reason why grafts mechanism was created) you can also have
invalid generation numbers if they are stored in commit headers.  With
generation cache we can simply invaliate it if grafts or replacements
change...

P.S. grafts are quite useful when doing history surgery.  Create
grafts, check history, use git-filter-branch to make new DAG
permanent, remove grafts.

P.P.S. What about "grafts lite", i.e. shallow clone?  With generation
cache we can invalidate it when depth changes...

-- 
Jakub Narębski
Poland