Re: Unresolved issues #2 (shallow clone again)

On 5/5/06, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

The vocabulary we would want from the requestor side is probably
(at least):

        I WANT to have these
        I HAVE these
        I'm MISSING these
        Don't bother with these this time around (--since, ^v2.6.16, ...)

Thinking... does the MISSING part matter at all? It seems that what
really matters are the "ignore rules". The pull may bring in a new
merge of a long-running branch, whose mergebase falls out of the
ignore rules.

In that case, the server should apply the ignore rules. Except that
later merges in the local repo would perhaps have to deal with missing
part of the history. I suspect it should refuse to merge something we
don't have all the merging parts for.

cheers,


martin