Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:
Well, I use it myself, what more can I say?
It's rather hard to justify a feature that is available to the general
public with documentation that only says "we tell you what happens in
terms of low-level commands when you use this feature, we warn you that
this has its own set of possible complications, but we do not specify what
they are, nor how to recover from them. You should know what you are doing
if you choose to use it".
That is not very helpful.
If this _were_ implemented as a sample hook on the receiving end, with
ample comments that the users can read to undersand the issues before
deciding to install it on their repositories, it might have been an easier
sell.
If Dscho is short on time, perhaps somebody else can improve upon the
documentation part of the patch? It's a long time ago that I took a look
at the patch text itself but I had a recorrection that the code itself was
reasonable (and it is a well known fact that I tend not to notice bugs in
Dscho's code so it is not a very useful thing for me to go back to look at
the code again now when I am short on brain cycles).
Hi,
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:
If Dscho is short on time, perhaps somebody else can improve upon the
documentation part of the patch?
That would be fabulous. It is not looking as if my Git time balance is
going to improve (as far as Git is concerned) now that I accepted to take
on more responsibilities in my day job.
It does not help, of course, that I wanted this jgit gui toy out to the
public, either.
Ciao,
Dscho
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 02:30:44PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Well, I use it myself, what more can I say?
It's rather hard to justify a feature that is available to the general
public with documentation that only says "we tell you what happens in
terms of low-level commands when you use this feature, we warn you that
this has its own set of possible complications, but we do not specify what
they are, nor how to recover from them. You should know what you are doing
if you choose to use it".
That is not very helpful.
If this _were_ implemented as a sample hook on the receiving end, with
ample comments that the users can read to undersand the issues before
deciding to install it on their repositories, it might have been an easier
sell.
If Dscho is short on time, perhaps somebody else can improve upon the
documentation part of the patch? It's a long time ago that I took a look
at the patch text itself but I had a recorrection that the code itself was
reasonable (and it is a well known fact that I tend not to notice bugs in
Dscho's code so it is not a very useful thing for me to go back to look at
the code again now when I am short on brain cycles).
So, let me summarize the issues:
- if the tree is pushed into while files are being actively read
(e.g. built from), the build will get an inconsistent state
- even worse if one of the files is open for editing or is being written
into: the file will get corrupted
- if there are uncommitted changes in the tree, the push is denied
Are there others?
--
MST