From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: read-only working copies using links Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:35:08 -0500 Message-ID: <20090124193508.GC18010@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <3EE64C92-CB4C-47BD-9C48-E369AED4B82F@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Chad Dombrova , Tim 'Mithro' Ansell , git@vger.kernel.org To: Sverre Rabbelier X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jan 24 20:36:37 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LQoJ1-0002Px-Gk for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:36:35 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755185AbZAXTfM (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:35:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755061AbZAXTfL (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:35:11 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:37813 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755028AbZAXTfK (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:35:10 -0500 Received: (qmail 19288 invoked by uid 107); 24 Jan 2009 19:35:17 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:35:17 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:35:08 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 07:43:20PM +0100, Sverre Rabbelier wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 19:39, Chad Dombrova wrote: > > what's the case against it, other than the obvious, that it will take more > > work? > > Good question, I think it was mostly that, someone has to implement it > (possibly as part of packv4). Backwards compatibility is of course > always an concern, but I'm not too familiar with the subject, perhaps > other people on the list (or even those were at the gittogether) can > comment? If I understand his proposal correctly, such objects must _not_ be part of a pack. The whole idea is splitting them _more_, not less. -Peff