Re: New release?

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jun 6, 2006, 08:30 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0606061019440.11478@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <7vodx6zus2.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Hi,

On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

>          - letting fetch-pack ask for an arbitrary commit object the
>            user obtained out of band (Eric W Biederman) -- waiting for
>            updated patch.  We would need a corresponding one-liner patch
>            to upload-pack when we do this.
> 
> This can wait.

I think that this could be an important step towards a sensible "shallow clone": we could introduce "remote alternates", where sha1_file transparently loads (and stores) single commit objects and tree objects together with their subtrees and blobs from a remote, if they are not present in the shallow repo yet.

This will be blazingly _slow_, I guess, if one does any such stupid thing as git-fsck-objects... However, it should be fixable (expensive commands, i.e. commands traversing extensive history/object lists, could just barf if the repo is shallow).

Show 5 quoted lines

>          - using ~/.gitrc to give a fall-back default when
>            $GIT_DIR/config does not have values.
> 
> I suspect this would be more involved than Pasky's initial
> patch; but it can wait.

I think that this is quite important for the aliases to be useful. However, it does not blend well with the mmap()ifying of the config reading.

Also, there is the problem of unique keys. You want unique keys to be only unique _per config file_, i.e. the local config can override the user's config. This is probably only relevant for git-repo-config, though.

Ciao, Dscho