Re: Unresolved issues #2 (shallow clone again)

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

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html