Re: [PATCH] technical doc: add a design doc for the evolve command
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:43:31 +0100
- From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] technical doc: add a design doc for the evolve command
On Tue, Nov 20 2018, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 15 2018, sxenos@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> +The “parent-type” field in the commit header identifies a commit as a
>>> +meta-commit and indicates the meaning for each of its parents. It is never
>>> +present for normal commits.
>> I think it's worth pointing out for those that are rusty on commit
>> object details (but I checked) is that the reason for it not being:
>> tree 4b825dc642cb6eb9a060e54bf8d69288fbee4904
>> parent aa7ce55545bf2c14bef48db91af1a74e2347539a
>> parent-type content
>> parent d64309ee51d0af12723b6cb027fc9f195b15a5e9
>> parent-type obsolete
>> parent 7e1bbcd3a0fa854a7a9eac9bf1eea6465de98136
>> parent-type origin
>> author Stefan Xenos <sxenos@xxxxxxxxx> 1540841596 -0700
>> committer Stefan Xenos <sxenos@xxxxxxxxx> 1540841596 -0700
>> Which would be easier to read, is that we're very sensitive to the order
>> of the first few fields (tree -> parent -> author -> committer) and fsck
>> will error out if we interjected a new field.
> By the way, in the spirit of limiting the initial scope, I wonder
> whether the parent-type fields can be stored in the commit message
> Elsewhere in this thread it was mentioned that the parent-type is a
> field to allow tools like "git fsck" to understand the meaning of
> these parent relationships (for example, to forbid a commit
> referencing a meta-commit). The same could be done using special
> commit message text, though.
> The advantage of such an approach would be that we could experiment
> without changing the official object format at all. If experiments
> revealed a different set of information to store, we could update the
> format without having to maintain the memory of the older format in
> "git fsck"'s understanding of commit object fields. So even though I
> think that in the end we would want to put this information in the
> commit object header, I'm tempted to suspect that the benefits of
> putting it in the commit message to start outweigh the costs (in
> particular, of having to migrate to another format later).
I think it sounds better to just make it, in the header:
Where "pt = parent-type", we could of course spell that out too, but in
this case it's "x-evolve-pt" is the exact same number of bytes as
"parent-type", so nobody can object that it takes more space:)
We'd then carry some documentation where we say everything except "x-*-"
is reserved, and that we'd like to know about new "*" there before it's
used, so it can be documented.
Putting it in the commit message just sounds like a hack around not
having namespaced headers. If we'd like to keep this then tools would
need to parse both (potentially unpacking a lot of the commit message
object, it can be quite big in some cases...).