On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Kristian H�rg wrote: > However, let me just say that the patch I sent is almost just that. > Part of the patch refactors init-db to be useful from clone, part of the > code is option parsing and figuring out the git dir, work tree. Also, > the part of the patch that does 'git checkout' is approximately 20 lines > that end up calling unpack_tre() and then write_cache(). The bulk of > the work here is really just builtin boilerplate code, option parsing > and the builtin-clone tasks you describe below (HEAD discovery, --shared > and --reference optimizations and the local hardlink optimization - all > these are in the 500 line builtin-clone.c I sent). > > And maybe it makes sense to use builtin-remote for the remote add -f > part, but the fetch part of the patch is 10 lines to set up for > fetch_pack(). So while I do agree that it makes sense to keep remotes > handling in one place, doing the fetch_pack() in builtin-clone.c doesn't > seem like a big duplication of code. And either way, I agree with > Dscho, once we have either builtin-clone or builtin-fetch it's easier to > share code and refactor, and there is not a strong reason to do one or > the other first. Er, we have builtin-fetch. We just don't have a way of calling it with all of the option parsing done, but that should be easy. I was expecting that step to get done when clone got converted, or maybe remote... I agree that the checkout special case when the code knows in advance that you don't have anything checked out beforehand is particularly trivial, and it's probably just as easy to call unpack_trees() and write_cache() as to use an actual checkout implementation. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank*
