On 8/20/08, James Pickens <jepicken@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds <at> gmail.com> writes:>> > From user POV, we can now checkout a single file or a> > subdirectory (checking out subdirectory non-recursively is> > possible too). You may start with a narrow clone like:>>> Is there any reason for the change in terminology from "sparse"> to "narrow"? I understand the difference between "partial"> and "sparse", but I can't tell if there's any difference> between "narrow" and "sparse". If they are the same thing, then> I think "sparse" is the better term.
I have no particular preference. It's up to the community to choose the name.
> > Last bit. "Narrow rules" for --path|--add-path|--remove-path is> > currently wildcards separated by colons. While it does the job,> > it does not allow to checkout easily a subdirectory> > non-recusively. I was thinking about '*' as "match everything> > except slashes" and '**' as "match everything even slashes".>>> I like this idea - it would make this much more intuitive to use,> since '*' and '**' would work the same as they do in the> shell (for shells that support '**' at least). I tried the patch> in it's current form, and it took me a while to figure out that> paths were non-recursive and '*' was matching everything,> including slashes.
Tried the last few days but it was not easy, needed to duplicatefnmatch code. I may come up with a less powerful syntax forrecusive/non-recursive '*'.-- Duy��.n��������+%������w��{.n��������n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�m
