On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Josh Triplett <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 09:14:56AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Josh Triplett <[email protected]> writes: >> > We could, but if we (or one of the many third-party git implementations) >> > miss a case, gitlinks+reachability may appear to work in many cases with >> > dataloss afterward, while gitrefs will fail early and not appear >> > functional. >> >> I wonder what happens if we do not introduce the "gitref" but >> instead change the behaviour of "gitlink" to imply an optional >> reachability. That is, when enumerating what is reachable in your >> repository, if you see a gitlink and if you notice that you locally >> have the target of that gitlink, you follow, but if you know you >> lack it, you do not error out. This may be making things too >> complex to feasibily implement by simplify them ;-) and I see a few >> immediate fallout that needs to be thought through (i.e. downsides) >> and a few upsides, too. I am feeling feverish and not thinking >> straight, so I won't try to weigh pros-and-cons. >> >> This would definitely need protocol extension when transferring >> objects across repositories. > > It'd also need a repository format extension locally. Otherwise, if you > ever touched that repository with an older git (or a tool built on an > older libgit2 or JGit or other library), you could lose data. > > It does seem conceptually appealing, though. In an ideal world, the > original version of gitlink would have had opt-out reachability (and > .gitmodules with an external repository reference could count as opting > out). > > But I can't think of any case where it's OK for a git implementation to > not know about this reachability extension and still operate on the > gitlink. And given that, it might as well use a new object type that > the old version definitely won't think it understands. > > - Josh Triplett
That's still only true if the receiving end runs fsck, isn't it? I suppose that's a large number of receivers, and at least there are ways post-push to determine that objects don't make sense to that version of git. I think using a new mode is the safest way, and it allows easily implementing RefTrees as well as other projects. Additionally, if we *wanted* additional "opt-in / opt-out" support we could add this by default to gitrefs,and they could (possibly) replace gitlinks in the future? Thanks, Jake
