Re: Wishlist for a bundle-only transport mode

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Jakub Narebski wrote:
>
> > Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > > On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Jakub Narebski wrote:
> > >
> > >> That has the disadvantage of pushing to bundle when you make an error
> > >> in the lastpart of path to existing repository.
> > >
> > > As I wrote in another reply, I would not allow overwriting an existing
> > > file.
> >
> > > Specifying a non-existing file should be good enough.
> >
> > What I meant here that if you do "git push /some/path/to/rpeo.git", with
> > mistake in the last part of path to repository, you would end up with a
> > bundle, and you would have to really watch what happened to catch the
> > error.
>
> I use tab completion all the time, so this would not happen to me.  IMHO
> that is a lesser issue than to introduce a "protocol".
>
> > I'd rather use "git push bundle:///some/path/to/bundle" or "git push
> > --bundle bundlename" to catch errors better.

> >
> > Besides it should be IMHO be possible to overwrite bundle if you are
> > doing fast-forward push...
>
> Not as far as I can see.  A push there would see what the bundle has
> already, and put them into the new bundle as _prerequisites_.  So the
> bundle would lose information.

>
> BTW this was my gripe (that I decided not to make public earlier) with
> Santi's proposal to begin with: a push would not have any way to specify
> what the other side has already.  So I think "git push <bundle>" is the
> wrong way of creating a bundle.