Re: [PATCH 0/2] Support for packs in HTTP

2005-07-11 Thread Daniel Barkalow
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > > > > You really _mustn't_ try to create the pack directly to the > > > $GIT_DIR/objects/pack subdirectory - that would make git itself start >

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Support for packs in HTTP

2005-07-11 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > You really _mustn't_ try to create the pack directly to the > > $GIT_DIR/objects/pack subdirectory - that would make git itself start > > possibly using that pack before the index is all done, and

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Support for packs in HTTP

2005-07-10 Thread Daniel Barkalow
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > > > Perhaps git-pack-objects should have the base as a optional argument, > > with a default of the filename in $GIT_DIR/objects/pack and an option > > for sending just the pack file to stdout? > > You r

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Support for packs in HTTP

2005-07-10 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > Perhaps git-pack-objects should have the base as a optional argument, > with a default of the filename in $GIT_DIR/objects/pack and an option > for sending just the pack file to stdout? You really _mustn't_ try to create the pack directly to the $

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Support for packs in HTTP

2005-07-10 Thread Daniel Barkalow
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > > On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > > Well, regardless, we want to be able to specify which directory to write > > > them to. We don't necessarily want to write them to the curr

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Support for packs in HTTP

2005-07-10 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > Well, regardless, we want to be able to specify which directory to write > > them to. We don't necessarily want to write them to the current working > > directory, nor do we want to write them to

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Support for packs in HTTP

2005-07-10 Thread Daniel Barkalow
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > So I would suggest either: > > > > - droping the packname parameter from git-pack-objects. Make > > the packs always named pack-X{40}.pack (or just X{40}.pack); > > Well, regardless, we want to

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Support for packs in HTTP

2005-07-10 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > So I would suggest either: > > - droping the packname parameter from git-pack-objects. Make > the packs always named pack-X{40}.pack (or just X{40}.pack); Well, regardless, we want to be able to specify which directory to write them to. We

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Support for packs in HTTP

2005-07-10 Thread Junio C Hamano
Daniel Barkalow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This series has one patch which is ready to go in and one that's not > (although it's a reasonable phony for the current state of the git world). I like the general direction in which this patch is leading us. But before going further, I'd like to se