Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> - letting fetch-pack ask for an arbitrary commit object the >> user obtained out of band (Eric W Biederman) -- waiting for >> updated patch. We would need a corresponding one-liner patch >> to upload-pack when we do this. >> >> This can wait. > > I think that this could be an important step towards a sensible "shallow > clone"... I did not say we are not interested in doing this ever. The "arbitrary commit" thing is easy but I do not think it is all that important to hold all the good stuff back that happened since 1.3.0 and delay 1.4.0. Also, what you talk about the "lazy clone" is a lot more involved than what Eric wanted to have. It is _never_ shallow clones that normal users would want -- making it shallow to explicitly say certain operations break is a cop-out for implementors. What the users really want is to be in total control -- ranging from completely on-demand ala CVS and SVN to "down to this commit in the history I would want to be cached on the local machine so that I can go offline and still do useful things with the history", with new failure modes for history traversing commands to exit gracefully when offline. That _is_ the ideal but I know it won't be within reach anytime soon. >> - using ~/.gitrc to give a fall-back default when >> $GIT_DIR/config does not have values. >> >> I suspect this would be more involved than Pasky's initial >> patch; but it can wait. > > I think that this is quite important for the aliases to be useful. I am not saying this is unimportant. Again, however, it is not that important to hold other good stuff. - : send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html