On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 19:12 -0400, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: > > > Dear diary, on Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 01:00:33AM CEST, I got a letter > > where Daniel Barkalow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > > > On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: > > > > > > > Dear diary, on Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 09:46:35PM CEST, I got a letter > > > > where Daniel Barkalow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > > > > > > > > Huh. Why? You just go back to history until you find a commit you > > > > already have. If you did it the way as Tony described, if you have that > > > > commit, you can be sure that you have everything it depends on too. > > > > > > But if you download 1000 files of the 1010 you need, and then your network > > > goes down, you will need to download those 1000 again when it comes back, > > > because you can't save them unless you have the full history. > > > > Why can't I? I think I can do that perfectly fine. The worst thing that > > can happen is that fsck-cache will complain a bit. > > Not if you're using the fact that you don't have them to tell you that you > still need the other 10, which is what tony's scheme would do. >
Any way (like maybe extending one of the web interfaces already around) to first get a list of all the sha1's you need, and then starting from the bottom like Tony/Petr wants you to do? -- Martin Schlemmer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
