From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: on subtree checkout Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:23:00 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy , git mailing list To: David Symonds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 26 12:24:12 2008 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 1JTxun-0007rR-5u for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:24:05 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751905AbYBZLX2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:23:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751577AbYBZLX2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:23:28 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:54974 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751089AbYBZLX1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:23:27 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2008 11:23:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO [138.251.11.74]) [138.251.11.74] by mail.gmx.net (mp015) with SMTP; 26 Feb 2008 12:23:25 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18xaGQmMJwxQMEJp/MGAO8Zfyq2dAxZBfH9TEEyZJ TDg44HeHMf0DOH X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (LSU 882 2007-12-20) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, David Symonds wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Johannes Schindelin > wrote: > > > > But I agree with others that you should think about sane > > implementations of rebase/merge with partial checkouts. > > I, too, was shortly going to attempt a partial checkout/clone > implementation. The intended context of my implementation was similar to > the KDE scenario in that you might only care about /pkgA and /pkgB, so > changes to /pkgC are usually irrelevant and independent to your > work-flow, so I was planning to assume a simplistic "theirs" merge > strategy for /pkgC, etc. That might work for the people who have partial checkouts. But I see a lot of problems looming there: just imagine a documenter rebased on top of 'master', and _then_ on top of a branch by another documenter, which is newer with respect to documentation, but older with respect to the code. It is _really_ easy to break code if you have no intention to test the result of a merge, _especially_ so when it is a "theirs" strategy. Ciao, Dscho