Antoine Pelisse <> writes:

>> I am not sure I follow the above, but anyway, I think the patch does
>> is safe because (1) future "fast-export" will not refer to these
>> pruned objects in its output (we have decided that these pruned
>> objects are not used anywhere in the history so nobody will refer to
>> them) and (2) we still need to increment the id number so that later
>> objects in the marks file get assigned the same id number as they
>> were assigned originally (otherwise we will not name these objects
>> consistently when we later talk about them).
> I fully agree on (1), not so much on (2) though.
> ...
> Both "commit mark :2" and "commit mark :3" end up being marked :2.
> Any tool like git-remote-hg that is using a mapping from mark <-> hg changeset
> could then fail.

Yeah, I think I agree that you would need to make sure that the
other side does not use the revision marked with :2, once you retire
the object you originally marked with :2 by pruning.  Shouldn't the
second export show :1 and :3 but not :2?  It feels like a bug in the
exporter to me that the mark number is reused in such a case.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to