On Fri, 5 May 2006 17:17:10 +1200, "Martin Langhoff" wrote: > > I WANT to have these > > I HAVE these > > I'm MISSING these > > Don't bother with these this time around (--since, ^v2.6.16, ...) > > Thinking... does the MISSING part matter at all? Yes. Imagine doing a shallow clone and then fetching a tree that includes a blob that existed before MISSING. If we say HAVE without MISSING then the server will not send that blob and we'll be left with a broken tree. > In that case, the server should apply the ignore rules. Except that > later merges in the local repo would perhaps have to deal with missing > part of the history. I suspect it should refuse to merge something we > don't have all the merging parts for. Yeah, shallow clones can shake up the conventions a bit. It's definitely common for a repository to only have a single parent-less commit, such that there is always an identifiable merge base for any pair of revisions. Shallow clones would make (effectively) parent-less commits much more common. Should be fun to see what things fall over with this... -Carl
Attachment:
pgpBWeghBn7pI.pgp
Description: PGP signature