Johannes Löthberg [off-list ref] writes:
On 15/06, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
You would probably want new tests, but more importantly did you make
sure this passes existing tests? It seems to break 5509 (there
could be others) at least for me.
It breaks 5509 currently yeah, though I've already fixed it locally.
Anyway,
You create a namespace by pushing to it,...
You keep repeating that, but I do not think we agreed that it is the
supported or correct procedure to set up a new namespace in the
first place. Doesn't the server side need a lot more than just
setting up HEAD symref (like running upload/receive-pack with the
path to the hierarchy exported as GIT_NAMESPACE environment)?
On 20/06, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Johannes Löthberg [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On 15/06, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
You would probably want new tests, but more importantly did you make
sure this passes existing tests? It seems to break 5509 (there
could be others) at least for me.
It breaks 5509 currently yeah, though I've already fixed it locally.
Anyway,
You create a namespace by pushing to it,...
You keep repeating that, but I do not think we agreed that it is the
supported or correct procedure to set up a new namespace in the
first place.
Whether it's 'correct' I can't say, but it's the only currently
supported way.
Doesn't the server side need a lot more than just
setting up HEAD symref (like running upload/receive-pack with the
path to the hierarchy exported as GIT_NAMESPACE environment)?
All it needs to do is use the refs under the ref namespace, and that it
has already done for a long time. (Since 2011 in fact.)
--
Sincerely,
Johannes Löthberg
PGP Key ID: 0x50FB9B273A9D0BB5
https://theos.kyriasis.com/~kyrias/