Re: [PATCH 00/17] Narrow clone v3 (was subtree clone)

From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 5, 2010, 21:05 UTC
Message-ID: <AANLkTikxr_uYu69RCcDNGzVcEexdykde0+ixh_Ti8rBx@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikwKgMy4x3n7jUKmpbxvpwtwHD-KBynu87WM==Y@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> 2010/9/5 Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@gmail.com>:
>> 2010/9/5 Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>:
>>> Tree generating from index, Elijah merges the base tree inside
>>> write_cache_as_tree() while it does it inside commit_tree(). Again the
>>> principle is pretty much the same. I'll see if I can resist from
>>> stealing some more :)
>>
>> Why don't you two combine your series instead? :)
>
> Hm.. the two series have different, conflicting goals. I think we'll
> end up sharing a lot though.

I think we'll probably eventually converge, and have been some already. For example, Nguyen dropped his tree-rewriting and remote-merge; and I'm going to drop my passing of arguments to upload pack on the command line, and my setup_revisions changes. I'll replace them with some of his patches, because his changes are a lot better there. Since he's planning to work on fsck next (it was down a ways on my list), I should be able to just adopt that too (especially if he does it by making it use rev-list). Finally, we've also adopted ideas in our discussions from each other. Even if we don't converge all the way, if we keep cherry-picking good stuff from each other and giving each other feedback, we'll get close and then others on the git list can chime in on what they'd prefer for any remaining differences between us.