Hello all, "Michel Fortin" <michel.for...@michelf.com> wrote in message news:iiu8dm$10te$1...@digitalmars.com... > On 2011-02-09 07:49:31 -0500, Bruno Medeiros > <brunodomedeiros+spam@com.gmail> said: >> On 04/02/2011 20:11, Michel Fortin wrote: >>> On 2011-02-04 11:12:12 -0500, Bruno Medeiros >>> <brunodomedeiros+spam@com.gmail> said: >>> >>>> Can Git really have an usable but incomplete local clone? >>> >>> Yes, it's called a shallow clone. See the --depth switch of git clone: >>> <http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-clone.html> >> >> I was about to say "Cool!", but then I checked the doc on that link and >> it says: >> "A shallow repository has a number of limitations (you cannot clone or >> fetch from it, nor push from nor into it), but is adequate if you are >> only interested in the recent history of a large project with a long >> history, and would want to send in fixes as patches. " >> So it's actually not good for what I meant, since it is barely usable >> (you cannot push from it). :( > > Actually, pushing from a shallow repository can work, but if your history > is not deep enough it will be a problem when git tries determine the > common ancestor. Be sure to have enough depth so that your history > contains the common ancestor of all the branches you might want to merge, > and also make sure the remote repository won't rewrite history beyond that > point and you should be safe. At least, that's what
The other way to collaborate is to email someone a diff. Git has a lot of support for extracting diffs from emails and applying the patches. HTH, Ned