Hi Dirk,
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Dirk Gouders wrote:
> "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Currently, that logic pretends that a missing parent commit is
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > equivalent to a missing parent commit, and for the purpose of
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > `--update-shallow` that is exactly what we need it to do.
>
> Chances are that I am wrong, but to me the above sounds very irritating.
Not only that, it's also wrong 😜
> > Therefore, let's introduce a flag to indicate when that is precisely the
> > logic we want.
> >
> > We need a flag, and cannot rely on `is_repository_shallow()` to indicate
> > that situation, because that function would return 0: There may not
> > actually be a `shallow` file, as demonstrated e.g. by t5537.10 ("add new
>
> Again, I'm not a native speaker but I understand the above as
> "There may not even be an existing `shallow` file...".
I'm not a native speaker either, but I'll give it a try anyway. How about
this?
Currently, that logic pretends that a commit whose parent
commit is missing is a root commit (and likewise merge commits
with missing parent commits are handled incorrectly, too).
However, for the purpose of `--update-shallow` that is exactly
what we need to do (and only then).
Therefore [...]
Better?
Ciao,
Johannes
