From: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:21:50 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] Narrow/Sparse checkout round 3: "easy mode"
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:
> 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.

>  > 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