Christian Jaeger wrote:
Andreas Ericsson wrote:
Christian Jaeger wrote:
Hm, not sure whether you mean to rescue the situation with rewritten
commits here -- but hell no, I certainly don't mean to have
different commit objects for different clones/checkouts.
Then you'll be transferring all objects over the wire anyway
Why? Again, care to differentiate between technical feasibility and
current implementation.
I think it was this detail:
... lazy cloning
which I have been leaving under the carpet in my previous mails; i.e.
when doing merges, Git may need additional objects which haven't been
fetched by just fetching the branches's subdirectory parts, so merges
can't generally be done offline anymore. This is certainly a departure
from the current idea; and if you don't want to depart from that, then
yes, you'd need basically the whole database in advance or merges
wouldn't be possible. So I think I understand why you said "Then you'll
be transferring all objects over the wire anyway", you did assume that
there would be no such thing as on-demand / lazy fetching of missing
objects.
Christian.
--
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
