Web lists-archives.com

Re: [RFC] Generation Number v2

On Tue, Oct 30 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> In contrast, maximum generation numbers and corrected commit
>> dates both performed quite well. They are frequently the top
>> two performing indexes, and rarely significantly different.
>> The trade-off here now seems to be: which _property_ is more important,
>> locally-computable or backwards-compatible?
> Nice summary.
> As I already said, I personally do not think being compatible with
> currently deployed clients is important at all (primarily because I
> still consider the whole thing experimental), and there is a clear
> way forward once we correct the mistake of not having a version
> number in the file format that tells the updated clients to ignore
> the generation numbers.  For longer term viability, we should pick
> something that is immutable, reproducible, computable with minimum
> input---all of which would lead to being incrementally computable, I
> would think.

I think it depends on what we mean by backwards compatibility. None of
our docs are saying this is experimental right now, just that it's
opt-in like so many other git-config(1) options.

So if we mean breaking backwards compatibility in that we'll write a new
file or clobber the existing one with a version older clients can't use
as an optimization, fine.

But it would be bad to produce a hard error on older clients, but
avoiding that seems as easy as just creating a "commit-graph2" file in