From: Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:20:28 GMT
Subject: Re: Pushing vs. alternates
Message-ID: <20061024112028.GY20017@pasky.or.cz>
In-Reply-To: <7vmz7muvqu.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Dear diary, on Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 07:29:45AM CEST, I got a letter
where Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> said that...
> Petr Baudis <pasky@ucw.cz> writes:
> 
> >   I don't have time to code that myself right now, so I'm just tossing
> > an idea around - pushing to a directory with alternates set up should
> > avoid sending objects that are already in the alternate object database.
> 
> That is probably only relevant for the first time, since
> subsequent pushes have refs from its own repository that tracks
> the tips of branches that was pushed for the last time.

Well, I would send haves for the alternate repository anyway, since: you
push your kernel branch, half a year passes, you merge with new
development and want to push again; you really do not want to push
everything that happenned over the last half a year. And sending the
extra haves shouldn't hurt, right?

> And first time usage when you are initializing the repository
> with alternates, you have direct access to that repository
> (that's how you can set up alternates), you can as easily do the
> initial fetch/clone as well at that time.

I don't understand this paragraph. This mail is about pushing, not
fetch/clone. You can only push if your login access is reduced to
git-shell, and something external could've set up your alternates.

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
#!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)