Re: Wishlist for a bundle-only transport mode

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi,

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Jakub Narebski wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Jakub Narebski wrote:
> >
> >> That has the disadvantage of pushing to bundle when you make an error 
> >> in the lastpart of path to existing repository.
> > 
> > As I wrote in another reply, I would not allow overwriting an existing 
> > file.
> 
> > Specifying a non-existing file should be good enough.
> 
> What I meant here that if you do "git push /some/path/to/rpeo.git", with 
> mistake in the last part of path to repository, you would end up with a 
> bundle, and you would have to really watch what happened to catch the 
> error.

I use tab completion all the time, so this would not happen to me.  IMHO 
that is a lesser issue than to introduce a "protocol".

> I'd rather use "git push bundle:///some/path/to/bundle" or "git push 
> --bundle bundlename" to catch errors better.
> 
> Besides it should be IMHO be possible to overwrite bundle if you are 
> doing fast-forward push...

Not as far as I can see.  A push there would see what the bundle has 
already, and put them into the new bundle as _prerequisites_.  So the 
bundle would lose information.

BTW this was my gripe (that I decided not to make public earlier) with 
Santi's proposal to begin with: a push would not have any way to specify 
what the other side has already.  So I think "git push <bundle>" is the 
wrong way of creating a bundle.

Except if we add some cunning strategy not to overwrite, ever, but to 
create <bundle>.<n> with an incrementing <n>.  But that might be too much.

Ciao,
Dscho