Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] Narrow/Sparse checkout round 3: "easy mode"
- From
Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
- Date
- Aug 30, 2008, 09:21 UTC
- Message-ID
- <fcaeb9bf0808300221q12d1d984mdf78c81363a909d1@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <loom.20080819T210550-149@post.gmane.org>
On 8/20/08, James Pickens <jepicken@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 12 quoted lines
> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds <at> gmail.com> writes: > > > From user POV, we can now checkout a single file or a > > subdirectory (checking out subdirectory non-recursively is > > possible too). You may start with a narrow clone like: > > > Is there any reason for the change in terminology from "sparse" > to "narrow"? I understand the difference between "partial" > and "sparse", but I can't tell if there's any difference > between "narrow" and "sparse". If they are the same thing, then > I think "sparse" is the better term.
I have no particular preference. It's up to the community to choose the name.
Show 13 quoted lines
> > Last bit. "Narrow rules" for --path|--add-path|--remove-path is > > currently wildcards separated by colons. While it does the job, > > it does not allow to checkout easily a subdirectory > > non-recusively. I was thinking about '*' as "match everything > > except slashes" and '**' as "match everything even slashes". > > > I like this idea - it would make this much more intuitive to use, > since '*' and '**' would work the same as they do in the > shell (for shells that support '**' at least). I tried the patch > in it's current form, and it took me a while to figure out that > paths were non-recursive and '*' was matching everything, > including slashes.
Tried the last few days but it was not easy, needed to duplicate fnmatch code. I may come up with a less powerful syntax for recusive/non-recursive '*'.
-- Duy