Re: Recent unresolved issues: shallow clone

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Apr 15, 2006, 00:17 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0604150211490.28913@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <87irpb7oma.wl%cworth@cworth.org>

Hi,

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006, Carl Worth wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> I also read over some of your discussion of extending the protocol
> with a new "shallow" extension.
> 
> I'm wondering if the shallow clone support couldn't be achieved
> through a simpler tweak to the protocol semantics, (and no change to
> protocol syntax), that would avoid the problem above. Specifically,
> for shallow stuff, could we just do the same "want" and "have"
> conversation with tree objects rather than commit objects?

It would not help your problem at all. "have commit" really means that you have the commit and all its ancestors and their combined tree objects and the combined tree objects' blob objects.

If you have a cauterized history, you know that you are lacking some of them. But you don't know which ones.

Now, issuing a pull could mean to get an object which was present in an old revision, which you unfortunately do not have (because you have a cut off history). Boom.

I know, this is probably unlikely, but not at all *impossible*, so you have to take care of that case. And you need a protocol extension for that.

Hth, Dscho