Re: Unresolved issues #2 (shallow clone again)
- From
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
- Date
- May 8, 2006, 04:02 UTC
- Message-ID
- <e3mfss$rnd$1@sea.gmane.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vy7xdgram.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 18 quoted lines
> Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes: > >> Wouldn't it be easier (sorry, no code yet) to have the following: >> >> I WANT to have these >> I HAVE these >> These are GRAFT PARENTLESS >> >> with the target side sending list of all parentless commits in the >> ... The source side will then do the grafting 'in memory' and >> send the packs like normal, only with those cauterizing grafts in place. > > I think that is essentially the outline of shallow clone > proposal, except that you have to be careful and take not just > "parentless" but other grafts (e.g. one that removes one parent > from a merge commit to pretend that a side branch did not exist) > into account as well. I do not remember if I already coded it > or not -- I might have.
Having grafts file being used for both joining history and cauterizing history makes re-cauterizing (e.g. changing depth of clone) difficult at best...
-- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland