Hi, On Tue, 24 May 2011, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jamey Sharp <jamey@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Given many repositories with copies of the same objects (such as > > branches of the same source), sharing a common object store will avoid > > duplication. Alternates provide a single baseline, but don't handle > > ongoing activity in the various repositories. Git safely handles > > concurrent accesses to the same object store across repositories, but > > operations such as gc need to know about all of the refs. > > > > This change adds support in upload-pack and receive-pack to simulate > > multiple virtual repositories within the object store and references > > of > > Is it just me to read the above and then have to re-read the first > sentence of the second paragraph over and over again? There seems to be > a huge gap in logic flow, probably largely due to the use of undefined > term "virtual repository". I had to read the example call to understand that 'virtual repository' means 'one real catch-em-all repository'. I wonder about two things, though: 1) Would teaching git clone to understand "-t this/repo/*" help? 2) You're extending the protocol by appending the prefix after the SHA-1, and I stopped halfway through the patch trying to find information which I now think should be in the commit message: a) why? b) why does it not break when one of the two sides is a previous version? Ciao, Dscho -- 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