Re: Unresolved issues #2 (shallow clone again)

On Fri, 5 May 2006 17:17:10 +1200, "Martin Langhoff" wrote:

quoted

        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?

Yes.

Imagine doing a shallow clone and then fetching a tree that includes a
blob that existed before MISSING. If we say HAVE without MISSING then
the server will not send that blob and we'll be left with a broken
tree.

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.

Yeah, shallow clones can shake up the conventions a bit. It's
definitely common for a repository to only have a single parent-less
commit, such that there is always an identifiable merge base for any
pair of revisions. Shallow clones would make (effectively) parent-less
commits much more common.

Should be fun to see what things fall over with this...

-Carl