3 ms·
GP isn't saying GitHub should copy the entire repo, only that there should be some indication that the code you're looking at isn't the repo owner's (despite be
by SilasX 7y ago
GP isn't saying GitHub should copy the entire repo, only that there should be some indication that the code you're looking at isn't the repo owner's (despite being committed in their name and on a repo they "control").
I don't see what optimization requires that. They already keep track of e.g. me pushing up someone else's commit after a rebase -- it indicates that I pushed but the commit originally came from someone else.
- orf 7y ago> I don't see what optimization requires that. From a single commit ID you cannot tell which repo it came from. A "repo" is just a tree of commits.
- nitrogen 7y agoThen it should be possible to store the originating repo along with the commit so that commits aren't visible in a given "repo" until they are pushed or pulled into that repo
- orf 7y agoStoring all commit origins at the scale of github is the expensive part.
- SilasX 7y agoGood thing Github is allowed to associate data with a commit ID, like they already do with rebased commits, as noted in the subsequent sentence.
- deathanatos 7y agoEven if you're deduplicating commits / data internally, you can tell that that commit is not present in that repo as it is not an ancestor to any ref in that repository. (You might argue that determining what refs contain a commit is potentially expensive, perhaps, but GitHub already does this, so I'd argue that it's not that expensive.)
- y4mi 7y agogithub doesnt use plain bare repositories for their repo hosting, so they can do whatever they deem useful :) if they did you'd be spot on though