Re: Unresolved issues #2 (shallow clone again)

On Thu, 4 May 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Jokes aside, I think listing the updated conversation elements
like you did above is a good step forward.

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, ...)

Actually, I think we can do something simpler that _most_ people might be 
happy with.

Namely just have a mode to "git-send-pack" that uses the "--no-walk" flag 
to generate the object list to send.

What that does is to never walk the object history: so it will just use 
the "I HAVE THESE" and "I WANT THESE" commit references to directly 
generate the list of commits, and then walks the trees to generate the 
list of trees/blobs that differ between the particular end-points.

We already have the "no_walk" flag internally, we just don't expose it.

So what you'd get is a _really_ cut down history that doesn't contain any 
commit history at all (just distinct "points in commit history time"), but 
that _does_ contain all the objects that the commits point to.

		Linus