Re: sparse support in pu
- From
- James Pickens <jepicken@gmail.com>
- Date
- Aug 17, 2009, 16:49 UTC
- Message-ID
- <885649360908170949j3b5dddffq2bb36620187c2bbb@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <alpine.DEB.1.00.0908171425410.4991@intel-tinevez-2-302>
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009, Johannes Schindelin<Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> The term 'phantom' is not specified at all. At least interested people on > the mailing list know 'sparse'. But I agree that the naming is a major > problem, hence my earlier (unanswered) call.
I don't particularly like 'phantom' either, but I haven't come up with any good alternatives. 'sparse' seems fine to me, though it might make sense to lengthen it to 'sparse-checkout'.
> However, I would find specifying what you do _not_ want in that file > rather unintuitive, in the same leage as receive.denyNonFastForwards = no. > > If I want to have a sparse checkout, I know which files I _want_.
I agree; specifying which files you don't want seems backwards to me.
James