On Monday, December 21, 2015 10:47:16 PM Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Stephen P. Smith <isch...@cox.net> wrote: > > [[repositories-and-branches]] > > Repositories and Branches > > ========================= > > @@ -72,6 +71,25 @@ called the <<def_working_tree,working tree>>, together > > with a special > > top-level directory named `.git`, which contains all the information > > about the history of the project. > > > > +[[how-to-get-a-git-repository-with-minimal-history]] > > +How to get a Git repository with minimal history > > +------------------------------------------------ > > Is this a good placement for this topic? Shallow repositories are not > heavily used, yet this placement amidst the very early and important > topics of cloning and checking out branches assigns potentially > significant (and perhaps unwarranted) weight to something used so > rarely.
After some thought I think that the section should be moved near the bottom of "Sharing development with others" since 1) that would reduce the significance and 2) it seems that a shallow clone would normally be used for contributing to a large project when downloading the entire history is expensive. Should it be placed just above the Tony Luk example? sps -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
