Rogan Dawes ha scritto: (...) > I think that one should not *expect* to be able to complete merges with > only a partial checkout, though. It *may* work in cases where there are > no conflicts, but I think it would be a perfectly valid error path to > fail if there is a conflicting merge in a part of the tree that has not > been checked out. > > So, for a user working on partial trees, they would be able to modify > their partial tree, and check in their changes, but merges would have to > be done by someone with a complete checkout. For the given examples > where partial trees make sense (documentation workers), this seems like > a reasonable compromise. I think this is what every reasonable developer should have in mind when he's working on just a project subset :). And I also think, this is not a valid reason for forbidding/not implementing such a partial (or subtree) checkout. -- Filippo Zangheri GPG key ID: 0xE1D879FA Key fingerprint: 816B CE57 D43C 0A47 EF35 3378 EA5F A72A E1D8 79FA Key server: pgp.mit.edu -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GE d- s+:- a-- C++ UL+++ P+ L+++ E-- W+ N* o-- K- w--- O-- M-- V- PS++ PE+ Y+ PGP++ t 5-- X++ R* tv b+ DI-- D---- G-- e++ h-- r++ z* ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ -- 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
