From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carl Worth Subject: Re: Unresolved issues #2 (shallow clone again) Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 22:23:34 -0700 Message-ID: <87bqud6o4p.wl%cworth@cworth.org> References: <7v64lcqz9j.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7v4q065hq0.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <87mzdx7mh9.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <7v1wv92u7o.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <46a038f90605042217n3261b14cxd63f35a31223848e@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="pgp-sign-Multipart_Thu_May__4_22:23:29_2006-1"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Junio C Hamano" , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri May 05 07:27:17 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 1FbsqT-00025M-7u for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 05 May 2006 07:27:17 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932470AbWEEF1O (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 May 2006 01:27:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932468AbWEEF1O (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 May 2006 01:27:14 -0400 Received: from cworth.org ([217.160.249.188]:39881 "EHLO theworths.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932467AbWEEF1N (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 May 2006 01:27:13 -0400 Received: (qmail 8764 invoked from network); 5 May 2006 01:27:11 -0400 Received: from localhost (HELO raht.cworth.org) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 5 May 2006 01:27:11 -0400 To: "Martin Langhoff" In-Reply-To: <46a038f90605042217n3261b14cxd63f35a31223848e@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) Emacs/21.4 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: --pgp-sign-Multipart_Thu_May__4_22:23:29_2006-1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 5 May 2006 17:17:10 +1200, "Martin Langhoff" wrote: > > I WANT to have these > > I HAVE these > > I'm MISSING these > > Don't bother with these this time around (--since, ^v2.6.16, ...) > > Thinking... does the MISSING part matter at all? Yes. Imagine doing a shallow clone and then fetching a tree that includes a blob that existed before MISSING. If we say HAVE without MISSING then the server will not send that blob and we'll be left with a broken tree. > In that case, the server should apply the ignore rules. Except that > later merges in the local repo would perhaps have to deal with missing > part of the history. I suspect it should refuse to merge something we > don't have all the merging parts for. Yeah, shallow clones can shake up the conventions a bit. It's definitely common for a repository to only have a single parent-less commit, such that there is always an identifiable merge base for any pair of revisions. Shallow clones would make (effectively) parent-less commits much more common. Should be fun to see what things fall over with this... -Carl --pgp-sign-Multipart_Thu_May__4_22:23:29_2006-1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBEWuFW6JDdNq8qSWgRAiMAAKCjcOx5IPow/e6KGdv1mefSWkyADACdEsqH RWh0rb6wRJVe2y4S2I4Re68= =GuWa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pgp-sign-Multipart_Thu_May__4_22:23:29_2006-1--