Re: [PATCH] git-clone --shared should imply --local

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Nov 29, 2005, 07:52 UTC
Message-ID: <7v4q5vlwko.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <1133248651.27750.82.camel@dv>

Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org> writes:

Show 19 quoted lines

> On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 23:08 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> > The "--shared" option to git-clone is silently ignored if "--local" is
>> > not specified.  The manual doesn't mention such dependency.  Make
>> > "--shared" imply "--local".
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org>
>> 
>> Hmph, then probably the manual should say it implies it...
>
> Actually, from the user point of view --local and --shared are
> alternatives to each other and to the default behavior.  --local copies
> files, --shared makes a reference.
>
> Saying that --shared implies --local could sound like git-clone would
> still copy all objects.
>
> My description was from the implementation point of view.

Ah.  Makes sense.