From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Shallow clone: low level machinery. Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:17:05 -0800 Message-ID: <7vr76m36ge.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <7voe1uchet.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7v8xsxa70o.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vmzhc1wz6.fsf_-_@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vd5i81e4e.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vzmlcz28x.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vbqxqbz9q.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Feb 02 02:17:20 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4T62-00050d-Fb for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 02:17:14 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161034AbWBBBRI (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Feb 2006 20:17:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161049AbWBBBRI (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Feb 2006 20:17:08 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtao06.cox.net ([68.230.241.33]:54520 "EHLO fed1rmmtao06.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161034AbWBBBRH (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Feb 2006 20:17:07 -0500 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.9.127]) by fed1rmmtao06.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20060202011401.HXYT20050.fed1rmmtao06.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Wed, 1 Feb 2006 20:14:01 -0500 To: Johannes Schindelin In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Thu, 2 Feb 2006 01:48:31 +0100 (CET)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin writes: >> If you have such a modified rev-list, yes. I was having doubts >> about keeping an obvious correctness guarantee when doing such >> "rev-list ~A". > > I think it would be trivial: just resolve ~A to the tree A points to: Hmph. I thought you meant "have-only A" to mean similar to "have A" but additionally "do not assume I have things behind A", and are going to extend rev-list to support ~A syntax to do that. I am a bit surprised to see your "rev-list ~A" is to include A, not exclude A and not what are behind A. Where is the connection between this and "have-only A"? ;-) >> > Yes, I agree. But again, the local repo has to know which grafts were >> > introduced by making the repo shallow. >> >> I am not sure I understand. grafts are grafts are grafts. > > Exactly. And grafts are grafts are not necessarily cutoffs. > > Now, is it possible that a fetch does something unintended, when there are > grafts which are not cutoffs? I don't know yet, but I think so. I think we are disagreeing, so "not Exactly". I meant "grafts are grafts, there is no cutoffs, they are also just grafts". So the answer to your question is "it does not matter".