"Santi Béjar" <santi@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I do not find convenient strictly incremental bundles, because then > you (or the other people) needs to fetch every single bundle. What I > do is add new objects until the bundle is too big and then create a > bundle with a new base. This way you don't have to worry if the other > person has applied the last bundle or not. You both have good points. I sort of tend to side with your argument from convenience point of view, if only because that resembles the way how people traditionally arrange incremental backups "a full dump on Sunday night, and every day incremental relative to the last full dump". Dscho's suggestion is akin to "a full dump on Sunday night, and every day incremental relative to the previous day". Both form obviously can recreate the same contents, but often "incremental since the last full synchronization point", even though it may make bigger dumps, is easier to handle for humans. >> IOW if you already have a bundle, >> you want to create a new bundle that contains everything that is new, _in >> addition_ to the existing bundle. > >>> while [ $# != 0 ] ; do >> >> Heh, I did not realize just how _used_ I got to the conventions in Git's >> shell programming, until I thought "Should this not use 'test' instead >> of brackets?" Now I see you are improving ;-) >>> while [ $# != 0 ] ; do >>> refs="$refs$LF$1" && shift >>> done >> >> That is equivalent to refs="$*", no? > > Almost, IFS is set to line-feed so I needed to put $LF instead of spaces. If $IFS is set to LF, "$*" will be $1, $2, $3 concatenated with LF in between. The first character in $IFS is used for that purpose.. -- 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
