On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 04:56:31PM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 11:45:01PM +0200, Ilari Liusvaara wrote: > > > I think there should always be an assumption that mirrors are not > necessarily complete. That is necessary for bundle-like mirrors to be > feasible, since updating the bundle for every commit defeats the > purpose. Also add protocol that grabs a bundle from HTTP and then opens that up? :-) > It would be nice for there to be a way for some mirrors to be marked as > "should be considered complete and authoritative", since we can optimize > out the final check of the master in that case (as well as for future > fetches). But that's a future feature. My plan was to leave space in the > mirror list for arbitrary metadata of that sort. The first thing one should get/do when connecting to another repository is its list of references. One can see from there if what one has got is complete or not (with --use-mirror that only allows skipping commit negotiation and fetch, not the whole connection due to the fact that the repositories are contacted in order)... -Ilari -- To unsubscribe from this list: 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