Re: Wishlist for a bundle-only transport mode

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Nov 21, 2007, 16:59 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711211658510.27959@racer.site>
In-Reply-To: <200711211752.40264.jnareb@gmail.com>

Hi,

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Jakub Narebski wrote:

Show 24 quoted lines

> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Jakub Narebski wrote:
> >> Santi Bejar wrote:
> >> 
> >>> 3) I can "git fetch" a bundle but I cannot "git push" a bundle, so if I have:
> >>> 
> >>> [remote "bundle"]
> >>> 	url = /file/to/bundle
> >>> 	fetch = "+refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/bundle/*"
> >>> 
> >>> $ git push bundle
> >>> 
> >>> would create a bundle in /file/to/bundle with the same branches as a
> >>> normal git push, but considering the remote branches as the local
> >>> remotes/bundle/*
> >> 
> >> And how you would differentiate between path meaning bundle, and path 
> >> meaning "local" protocol, i.e. git repository on the same filesystem? 
> > 
> > Maybe because the git repository is specified as an existing directory?  
> > The bundle is specified as a (possibly non-existing) file...
> 
> That has the disadvantage of pushing to bundle when you make an error
> in the lastpart of path to existing repository.

As I wrote in another reply, I would not allow overwriting an existing file.

> After thinking about it a bit, I think it would be better to use 
> bundle:// pseudoprotocol for the URL including config (bundle://file, 
> bundle:///path/to/bundle) and --bundle option to git push for 
> commandline.

I don't like that at all.

Specifying a non-existing file should be good enough.

Ciao, Dscho