From: Nick Edelen <sirnot@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 16:47:33 GMT
Subject: Re: [WIP] Shift rev-list enumeration from upload-pack to pack-objects
Message-ID: <c77435a80906070947u9bf8ce9m9d59f86e5a5f18ab@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0906071225060.3906@xanadu.home>

crap, your right.  somehow I managed to miss that...

I'll go ahead and seperate them then...

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Nicolas Pitre<nico@cam.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Nick Edelen wrote:
>
>> I'm using the --revs flag in pack-objects, which causes it to use
>> get_object_list().  you'll notice, regardless of whether --thin is
>> set, this function still calls
>>       mark_edges_uninteresting(revs.commits, &revs, show_edge);
>> which sets uninteresting objects as preferred bases, which I'd think
>> would create a thin pack.  I could be wrong though...
>
> Look at the arguments passed to setup_revisions().
> When --thin is set, the --objects-edge flag is passed instead of
> --objects.  Now see what effect this has on the third argument of
> mark_edges_uninteresting().
>
>> as I mentioned in the comment and above, it's an easy fix, but even
>> then I wasn't sure what to do with commit grafts.  as use_thin_pack
>> seemed to be predominantly set on shallow interactions, I just didn't
>> bother seperating the cases 'normal but thick pack' and 'shallow
>> stuff'.
>
> Please do separate them.  In theory you could use thin packs with a
> relative deepening of a shallow clone.  In other words, !thin and
> shallow is a wrong association to make.
>
>
> Nicolas
>