Re: [PATCH 00/17] Narrow clone v3 (was subtree clone)
- From
Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 6, 2010, 05:24 UTC
- Message-ID
- <AANLkTimyZfkMCFEeAX_Cpwscb0+EiZam0Hy0UBsB47C3@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <AANLkTinNnm=Z=e_=P_auuNgSrDynt_P+FLiZgWeNNgps@mail.gmail.com>
2010/9/6 Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>:
Show 9 quoted lines
> Hi, > > 2010/9/5 Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>: >> I'll describe differences between this series and Elijah's one [1]. >> I think it's more interesting. Changes from v2 [2] will follow later. > > So, I downloaded your patches and even made sure to sort them > appropriately to fix the order, but I'm getting conflicts trying to > apply them (on top of current pu). What version did you base them on?
b5442ca (was master in Aug 24) with en/object-list-with-pathspec applied on top. Sorry I don't want to change my base too often so it's quite old.
Show 8 quoted lines
>> Things that won't work: >> >> - Shell scripts that use "git write-tree" > > Yeah, write-tree didn't work in mine either; I had to make it throw an > error. But wouldn't your idea to make a tree object (referenced for > sha1sums outside the sparse/narrow paths) part of the index allow even > write-tree to work?
Definitely.
Show 9 quoted lines
>> - only send commits that have changes in narrow area and graft it at >> client side > > After reviewing more of your changes, and replacing various patches of > mine with yours, this is fairly high on my priority list as well > (whereas fsck & prune are a bit lower). Maybe we can discuss ideas on > tackling this when we start working on it. I've got some rough > initial ideas (though I have no idea if they'll pan out); I'll see if > I can write some of them up in the next day or two.
Well, looking forward to your fake commit implementation. I think it's more or less the same as graft.
-- Duy