From: Mark Levedahl <mdl123@verizon.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 23:21:30 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add git-unbundle - unpack objects and references for disconnected transfer
Message-ID: <45D63C7A.4050300@verizon.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vhctl50zc.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Mark, how urgent do you want to have "bundle" in my tree?  As I
> understand it, this came out of your working zip based
> implementation your group already use, so I am suspecting that
> you do not have urgent need to have a different one in git.git
> in a half-baked shape.
>   
I can get my work done today with what I have. However, I really believe 
bundle is a good addition to git, and I don't want to maintain an 
out-of-tree patch to git to add this capability.
> Wouldn't it be nice if you can treat a bundle as just a
> different kind of git URL that you can "git fetch"?
>
> 	$ git fetch file.bdl 'refs/heads/*:refs/heads/*'
>   
yes
>
> Then git-ls-remote can be taught about a bundle file and use the
> 'git bundle --list-heads'.  Also, with something like this in
> your config:
>
> 	[remote "bundle"]
>         	url = /home/me/tmp/file.bdl
>                 fetch = refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
>
> You can first sneakernet the bundle file to ~/tmp/file.bdl and
> then these commands:
>
> 	$ git ls-remote bundle
>         $ git fetch bundle
> 	$ git pull bundle
>
> would treat it as if it is talking with a remote side over the
> network.
>
> Hmm?
>
>   
As long as I can still do a "git fetch file.bdl" and without having to 
do the config stuff. I'm happy. Integrating this bundle with basic git 
approaches to things is obviously good. The frontend you outlined seems 
a trivial rearrangement of what I already have, but I'll let this 
discussion progress a bit further before I start doing that.

Mark