From: Johan Herland Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 01:14:31 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] builtin-clone Message-ID: <200804180314.31659.johan@herland.net> In-Reply-To: On Friday 18 April 2008, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Johan Herland wrote: > > On Friday 18 April 2008, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > > This is my latest version, rebased approximately on current master (or > > > recent maint, I guess). It's missing all of Johan's stuff, which is tests > > > for stuff I've fixed > > > > Does this mean you no longer need the tests, or that you want me to resend? > > I have them, but my patch-sending process isn't set up for sending other > people's patches without forging their email, and I wanted to get this > series out, and they're not critical, so I skipped them for now. No problem. Feel free to do whatever you like with them. :) > > 1. Add a command-line option (and config variable?) for controlling > > whether "git clone" generates packed refs. > > > > 2. Make "git clone" unconditionally generate packed refs. > > > > Currently, I'm leaning towards (2), [...] > > > > If there are good arguments for going with (1), I'd love to hear them. > > I think it's fine, actually (now that you've not test corrections that > work for it); but I'd like to have builtin-clone land without any changes > in behaviour, and then get this sort of improvement. Yes, I agree that a pure rewrite (without changes in behaviour) should be committed first. Have fun :) ...Johan -- Johan Herland, www.herland.net