Hi, Am Montag, den 09.12.2013, 09:24 +0100 schrieb Herbert Valerio Riedel:
What kind of links are you referring to btw? I don't see any clickable GHC SHA1 ids these days anymore... :-)
well, people do write SHA1 ids in tickets comments directly. (At least I do. And then I rebase my branch. And then the link is dead ;-)) But in contrast to the mailing list link issue, even if we rewrite the testsuite before merging, it will be possible, although a bit more tedious, to look up the corresponding new hash. It is hard to predict what is more common: Following SHA1-links from old (and in the future even older) tickets, or doing git archeology inside the repo. I guess both are relatively rare that we are risking to spend more time discussing it than we’d save otherwise... The only thing that will permanently hurt if we do not fix it now are the binary blobs. I do often make new checkouts (I still do separate feature branches in separate checkouts, plus validate trees, plus baseline trees to compare the effect of my changes). So I’m still in favor of rewriting the branch. We could even check in the ID→ID mapping in the repo and have a easy to discover ./testsuite/lookup-old-id script so that this is even less an annoyance. Greetings, Joachim PS: What happens if we set up replace objects in the git repo that cgit and trac are using: https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-replace.html Would that make the old links still work? -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de • http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ Jabber: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de • GPG-Key: 0x4743206C Debian Developer: nomeata@debian.org