On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote:
> Hi Duy,
>
> I saw your patch series got accepted in git master a while back, great!
> Since I hope to be using the fixed behaviour soon, what was the plan for
> including it? Am I correct in thinking that git master will become 1.8.5
> in
Hi Duy,
I saw your patch series got accepted in git master a while back, great!
Since I hope to be using the fixed behaviour soon, what was the plan for
including it? Am I correct in thinking that git master will become 1.8.5
in a while? Would this series perhaps be considered for backporting to
1
Hi Duy,
> I thought a bit but my thoughts often get stuck if I don't write them
> down in form of code :-) so this is what I got so far. 4/6 is a good
> thing in my opinion, but I might overlook something 6/6 is about this
> thread.
The series looks good to me, though I don't know enough about t
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote:
> Hi Duy,
>
>> OK. Mathijs, do you want make a patch for it?
> I'm willing, but:
> - I don't understand the code and all of your comments well enough yet
>to start coding right away (though I haven't actually invested enough
>time
Hi Duy,
> OK. Mathijs, do you want make a patch for it?
I'm willing, but:
- I don't understand the code and all of your comments well enough yet
to start coding right away (though I haven't actually invested enough
time in this yet, either).
- I'll be on vacation for the next two weeks.
W
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Duy Nguyen writes:
>
>> I fail to see the point here. There are two different things: what we
>> want to send, and what we can make deltas against. Shallow boundary
>> affects the former. What the recipient has affects latter. What is the
>
Duy Nguyen writes:
> I fail to see the point here. There are two different things: what we
> want to send, and what we can make deltas against. Shallow boundary
> affects the former. What the recipient has affects latter. What is the
> twist about?
do_rev_list() --> mark_edges_uninteresting() --
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Duy Nguyen writes:
>
>> I think this applies to general case as well, not just shallow.
>> Imagine I have a disconnected commit that points to the latest tree
>> (i.e. it contains most of latest changes). Because it's disconnected,
>> it'll
Duy Nguyen writes:
> I think this applies to general case as well, not just shallow.
> Imagine I have a disconnected commit that points to the latest tree
> (i.e. it contains most of latest changes). Because it's disconnected,
> it'll be ignored by the server side. But if the servide side does
>
Duy Nguyen writes:
> Haven't found time to read the rest yet, but this I can answer.
> .git/shallow records graft points. If a commit is in .git/shallow and
> it exists in the repository, the commit is considered to have no
> parents regardless of what's recorded in repository. So .git/shallow
>
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> while playing with shallow fetches, I've found that in some
> circumstances running git fetch with --depth can return too many objects
> (in particular, _all_ the objects for the requested revisions are
> returned, even when
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Matthijs Kooijman writes:
>
>>> > In your discussion (including the comment), you talk about "shallow
>>> > root" (I think that is the same as what we call "shallow boundary"),
>>> I think so, yes. I mean to refer to the commits referenced i
Matthijs Kooijman writes:
>> > In your discussion (including the comment), you talk about "shallow
>> > root" (I think that is the same as what we call "shallow boundary"),
>> I think so, yes. I mean to refer to the commits referenced in
>> .git/shallow, that have their parents "hidden".
> Could
Hi Junio,
I haven't got a reply to my mail yet. Could you have a look, so I can
update and resubmit my patch?
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 09:11:57AM +0200, Matthijs Kooijman wrote:
> > [administrivia: you seem to have mail-followup-to that points at you
> > and the list; is that really needed???]
> >
Hi Junio,
> [administrivia: you seem to have mail-followup-to that points at you
> and the list; is that really needed???]
I'm not subscribed to the list, so yes :-)
> > This happens when a client issues a fetch with a depth bigger or equal
> > to the number of commits the server is ahead of the
Matthijs Kooijman writes:
[administrivia: you seem to have mail-followup-to that points at you
and the list; is that really needed???]
> This happens when a client issues a fetch with a depth bigger or equal
> to the number of commits the server is ahead of the client.
Do you mean "smaller" (no
Hi folks,
while playing with shallow fetches, I've found that in some
circumstances running git fetch with --depth can return too many objects
(in particular, _all_ the objects for the requested revisions are
returned, even when some of those objects are already known to the
client).
This happens
17 matches
Mail list logo
