On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 11:23:30AM -0500, Jon Smirl wrote: > > Assuming that they also retain the "having an object implies having all > > of the objects it points to" property, then it makes it hard to talk > > about subsets or single refs. If I fetch from you and you communicate > > your repo state as some hash, then I am stuck getting _all_ of your > > refs to complete this property. > > push/pull would still work at the branch level. The local state > tracking objects wouldn't be exchanged. Fair enough. My spider sense still tingles about this, and I have the feeling that you might run into weird merge problems when two refs are updated simultaneously. I guess that shouldn't happen since you will write out the complete "here are the refs" after every operation, leaving no room for simultaneous updates, but I haven't given it enough thought to be sure there aren't funny corner cases. -Peff - 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
