Show 23 quoted lines
> A Large Angry SCM wrote:
>> Jakub Narebski wrote:
>>> A Large Angry SCM wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is no fundamental reason Git can not support partial
>>>> checkouts/working directories. In fact, there is no fundamental reason
>>>> Git can not support operations on partial (sparse?) repositories in both
>>>> space (working content/state, etc.) and time (history); it's just a
>>>> matter of record keeping[*1*]. That isn't how the Linux kernel
>>>> developers want to use their VCS but it _is_ how others want to use
>>>> theirs.
>>> There is perhaps not much trouble with partial checkouts, but there is
>>> problem with partial _commits_, at least for snapshot based SCM
>>> (as opposed to patchset based SCM).
>> By "partial commit" I take it you mean a commit with only partial
>> information about the new (content) state? If so, the missing
>> information about the new state can be assumed to have not changed from
>> the previous recorded state (commit).
>
> That of course assumes that 1) the whole state is recorded somewhere
> (perhaps in the repository); so the partial checkout saves space only if
> repository compress really well, 2) there are no merges outside checked out
> part.
1) The TREE objects leading to the objects that are
added/deleted/changed objects are required. TREEs not leading to the
added/deleted/changed objects are not required, only their IDs. That is
sufficient to commit the changes in a partial checkout.
2) Obviously, only the part checked out can be worked on. If you want to
merge changes to some other part, you will need that part, and possibly
a mergebase.
A Large Angry SCM <gitzilla@gmail.com>