From: James Pickens <jepicken@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:49:17 GMT
Subject: Re: sparse support in pu
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