From: "Philip Oakley" <>
> Sorry for not replying earlier in the series.
> From: "Christian Couder" <>
>> Users replacing an object with one of a different type were not
>> prevented to do so, even if it was obvious, and stated in the doc,
>> that bad things would result from doing that.
>> To avoid mistakes, it is better to just forbid that though.
>> If one object is replaced with one of a different type, the only way
>> to keep the history valid is to also replace all the other objects
>> that point to the replaced object.
> Isn't this a recursion problem? Taken in that order one unravels the
> whole DAG.
> However if considered in the reverse direction, one can replace an
> existing object within the DAG with a carefully crafted alternative of
> the same type, but which then wrongly references other dangling
> objects which are then replaced by objects which have the right type
> (this last replacement requires -f force).

I am not sure I understand what you are saying.

Anyway in a previous version of this patch I tried to be more explicit
about this, but Junio basically said that he found no value in
discussing this more explicitely...

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