Re: New release?

[Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>]

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>>          - letting fetch-pack ask for an arbitrary commit object the
>>            user obtained out of band (Eric W Biederman) -- waiting for
>>            updated patch.  We would need a corresponding one-liner patch
>>            to upload-pack when we do this.
>> 
>> This can wait.
>
> I think that this could be an important step towards a sensible "shallow 
> clone"...

I did not say we are not interested in doing this ever.  The
"arbitrary commit" thing is easy but I do not think it is all
that important to hold all the good stuff back that happened
since 1.3.0 and delay 1.4.0.

Also, what you talk about the "lazy clone" is a lot more
involved than what Eric wanted to have.  It is _never_ shallow
clones that normal users would want -- making it shallow to
explicitly say certain operations break is a cop-out for
implementors.  What the users really want is to be in total
control -- ranging from completely on-demand ala CVS and SVN to
"down to this commit in the history I would want to be cached on
the local machine so that I can go offline and still do useful
things with the history", with new failure modes for history
traversing commands to exit gracefully when offline.  That _is_
the ideal but I know it won't be within reach anytime soon.

>>          - using ~/.gitrc to give a fall-back default when
>>            $GIT_DIR/config does not have values.
>> 
>> I suspect this would be more involved than Pasky's initial
>> patch; but it can wait.
>
> I think that this is quite important for the aliases to be useful. 

I am not saying this is unimportant.  Again, however, it is not
that important to hold other good stuff.