Re: Git 1.0 Synopis (Draft v4)

From: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
Date: Aug 16, 2005, 15:39 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0508161123480.23242@iabervon.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vy872fiin.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> writes:
>
> > It might be worth putting the list of things left to do before 1.0 in the
> > tree (since they clearly covary), and it would be useful to know what
> > you're thinking of as preventing the release at any particular stage.
>
> Yeah, yeah.  Call me lazy.
>
> Excerpts from my "last mile to 1.0", my Itchlist, and pieces from
> random other messages since then.
>
> - Documentation. [I really need help here --- among ~7000 lines
>   there, I've written around 2500 lines, David Greaves another
>   2500, and Linus 1400.  And it is not very easy to proofread
>   what you wrote yourself.]

I'm not sure how done this can actually get before some sort of feature freeze; the best ways to do things keeps changing as more convenient ways are added. Once the new stuff is diverted to post-1.0, I'd be interested in going through it.

Show 6 quoted lines

> - git prune and git fsck-cache; think about their interactions
>   with an object database that borrows from another.  This
>   includes the case where .git/objects itself is symlinked to
>   somewhere else (i.e. running "git prune" that somewhere else
>   without consulting this repository would lose objects), and
>   alternates pointing at somewhere else (i.e. ditto).

It should be fine, but only if .git/refs is symlinked to the matching place; this gives you the same repository with multiple working trees. Having refs/ and objects/ directories that aren't always together would be much less safe.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*