git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: Feedback outside of the user survey

From
CJChristian Jaeger <christian@jaeger.mine.nu>
Date
Oct 20, 2008, 16:57 UTC
Message-ID
<48FCB87B.1080207@jaeger.mine.nu>
In-Reply-To
<48FCADA0.4020008@op5.se>
Andreas Ericsson wrote:
Show 7 quoted lines
> Christian Jaeger wrote:
>> Hm, not sure whether you mean to rescue the situation with rewritten 
>> commits here -- but hell no, I certainly don't mean to have different 
>> commit objects for different clones/checkouts.
>>
>
> Then you'll be transferring all objects over the wire anyway

Why? Again, care to differentiate between technical feasibility and current implementation.

I did make a list of cases in my pre-previous email which tried to go through the implications.

Show 9 quoted lines
>>> What you'd end up with wouldn't be a git repository at all anymore. It
>>> would be a "stump", as it'd be missing large parts of the tree 
>>> entirely.
>>
>> That was my point, yes.
>>
>
> That's partially implemented, I think (google for Nguy (or something, I'm
> not very god with asian names),

That's not enough information for me to find what you've had in mind. "stump Nguy site:marc.info" doesn't yield a result with Google.

> but your original suggestion said to save
> on transferring objects from one machine to another, 
Yes
> which will play poorly
> with git's object database

Why, if we seem to already have agreed that the object database would be a "stump"? It may play poorly with the current implementation of the database maintainance code, but I don't see why it would play poorly with the database's data structure design.

> and which you're now arguing against.
I don't get this part of the sentence.

I did (3 mails ago) say, "(one) could additionally look into implementing a kind of shallow cloning". When you said that the kind of repository I'm "arguing" for would be a "stump", that sounded exactly what I've meant, in the same sense that a shallow clone creates a repository that is missing part of the tree (or maybe DAG is a better term). So I said "That was my point, yes", maybe I should have said "That's what I've meant when I was saying a 'kind of shallow cloning'." Ok? I might miss some fine points in the english language as I'm not a native speaker.

>
> Please make up your mind.
About what?

Do you mean whether I want to implement the idea? Then no, I don't see myself contributing any code for this. I certainly don't have a use case personally where it would pay off. My motivation to contributing to this thread was to point out that there is, afaik, nothing inherent in the Git design (at least the database) which would absolutely prevent one from implementing subdirectory checkouts (including even saving on bandwith by doing some kind of shallow / stump / lazy cloning).

Christian.
Previous: Andreas EricssonNext: Christian Jaeger
Message 14 of 17 in “Feedback outside of the user survey”
  1. Richard HartmannOct 16, 2008
  2. Jeff KingOct 16, 2008
  3. Richard HartmannOct 16, 2008
  4. Garry DolleyOct 16, 2008
  5. Richard HartmannOct 16, 2008
  6. Christian JaegerOct 16, 2008
  7. Garry DolleyOct 18, 2008
  8. Christian JaegerOct 18, 2008
  9. Andreas EricssonOct 20, 2008
  10. Christian JaegerOct 20, 2008
  11. Andreas EricssonOct 20, 2008
  12. Christian JaegerOct 20, 2008
  13. Andreas EricssonOct 20, 2008
  14. Christian JaegerOct 20, 2008
  15. Christian JaegerOct 20, 2008
  16. Junio C HamanoOct 20, 2008
  17. Christian JaegerOct 21, 2008

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.