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.
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html