Re: [QUESTION] Selective fetch possible?

From: Filippo Zangheri <filippo.zangheri@yahoo.it>
Date: Mar 11, 2008, 12:29 UTC
Message-ID: <47D67B16.8040709@yahoo.it>
In-Reply-To: <47D64BE4.9010009@dawes.za.net>

Rogan Dawes ha scritto: (...)

Show 11 quoted lines

> I think that one should not *expect* to be able to complete merges with 
> only a partial checkout, though. It *may* work in cases where there are 
> no conflicts, but I think it would be a perfectly valid error path to 
> fail if there is a conflicting merge in a part of the tree that has not 
> been checked out.
> 
> So, for a user working on partial trees, they would be able to modify 
> their partial tree, and check in their changes, but merges would have to 
> be done by someone with a complete checkout. For the given examples 
> where partial trees make sense (documentation workers), this seems like 
> a reasonable compromise.

I think this is what every reasonable developer should have in mind when he's working on just a project subset :). And I also think, this is not a valid reason for forbidding/not implementing such a partial (or subtree) checkout.

-- 
Filippo Zangheri

GPG key ID: 0xE1D879FA
Key fingerprint: 816B CE57 D43C 0A47 EF35 3378 EA5F A72A E1D8 79FA
Key server: pgp.mit.edu

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s+:- a-- C++ UL+++ P+ L+++ E-- W+ N* o-- K- w--- O-- M--
V- PS++ PE+ Y+ PGP++ t 5-- X++ R* tv b+ DI-- D---- G-- e++ h--
r++ z*
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------