From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 01:17:05 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Shallow clone: low level machinery.
Message-ID: <7vr76m36ge.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0602020113200.30910@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

>> If you have such a modified rev-list, yes.  I was having doubts
>> about keeping an obvious correctness guarantee when doing such
>> "rev-list ~A".
>
> I think it would be trivial: just resolve ~A to the tree A points to:

<tired> Hmph.  I thought you meant "have-only A" to mean similar
to "have A" but additionally "do not assume I have things behind
A", and are going to extend rev-list to support ~A syntax to do
that.  I am a bit surprised to see your "rev-list ~A" is to
include A, not exclude A and not what are behind A.  Where is
the connection between this and "have-only A"?  </tired> ;-)

>> > Yes, I agree. But again, the local repo has to know which grafts were 
>> > introduced by making the repo shallow.
>> 
>> I am not sure I understand.  grafts are grafts are grafts.
>
> Exactly. And grafts are grafts are not necessarily cutoffs.
>
> Now, is it possible that a fetch does something unintended, when there are 
> grafts which are not cutoffs? I don't know yet, but I think so.

I think we are disagreeing, so "not Exactly".  I meant "grafts
are grafts, there is no cutoffs, they are also just grafts".  So
the answer to your question is "it does not matter".