Adeodato Simó <dato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> Wy not just say "pushing into a shallow repository is not supported"
>> instead of "pushing into a shallow repository won't work."
>
> I don't think such a wording is enough (adjusted, of course, to be about
> pushing from, not to, which is the case at hand).
>
> But I'll try to stay silent, and see if Junio has an opinion on the
> matter.
I would be a terrible judge for things like this; I lost my git virginity
long time ago.
If I have to say something on this...
* I think "is not supported" is a succinct way to give good enough
information, but it would only work for intelligent people.
* Not everybody is intelligent; some try it out themselves, see that the
operation _seems to_ work for their limited number of trials, and would
conclude it would work most of the time. And they congratulate their
own intelligence for saying "most of the time", not "always". And they
get upset when they see it does not work, even though they have been
warned.
* Hence, I do not think "is not supported" is a statement that is a bit
too weak. At least you need to say "it may seem to work, but no
guarantees", _if_ your objective is to cover the backside of "shallow".
But I do not think that is what we should be aiming for to begin with.
It is not like nobody can precisely answer when "pushing from shallow"
works and when it doesn't. It would be true for a hack that was not well
designed but merely was meant to be "good enough for most of the time",
but I do not think "shallow" is that horrible a hack.
Isn't the rule more or less like:
If your shallow repository's history does not extend long enough and
the other repository forked before your truncated history, wyou cannot
compute the common ancestor and you cannot push out.
--
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
