"Philip Oakley" <[email protected]> writes:
> A recent comment http://stackoverflow.com/a/18027030/717355 on a
> question I asked two years ago about 'grafts' and 'replace' indicates
> that users think that 'git replace' can't replace a merge commit. The
> documentation doesn't have any examples and gives the naive impression
> that one should only replace a simple commit with another simple
> commit.
>
> Having looked at the code, I realised that anything can be replaced
> with anything, which is perhaps not what was intended. A simple
> thought is that the replace should be like-for-like with regard to
> object type, though that would not include replacing a sub-module for
> a tree (and vice versa).
Off hand I cannot come up with any case where you can replace one object
with one of a different type, keeping the history valid.
To back that up:
* Refs can be "replaced" simply by changing the ref itself.
* Annotated tags contain the type of the tagged object.
* The tree/parent lines in commits must be a tree and commits, resp.
* The object types referred to by trees are specified in the 'mode'
field:
100644 and 100755 blob
160000 commit
040000 tree
(these are the only valid modes)
* Blobs don't point at anything.
So yes:
> Should 'git replace' check the object types to ensure they are sensible?
I think that would be a very good thing to check.
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
