Dnia 2014-02-24, o godz. 13:04:13
hasufell napisał(a):
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Michał Górny:
> > Dnia 2014-02-24, o godz. 01:18:49 hasufell
> > napisał(a):
> >
> >> But to make it more clear to you: I don't think that removing
> >> shallow clone support is an im
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Michał Górny:
> Dnia 2014-02-24, o godz. 01:18:49 hasufell
> napisał(a):
>
>> But to make it more clear to you: I don't think that removing
>> shallow clone support is an improvement, so I vote against
>> removing it.
>
> Then please provide patch
Dnia 2014-02-24, o godz. 01:18:49
hasufell napisał(a):
> But to make it more clear to you: I don't think that removing shallow
> clone support is an improvement, so I vote against removing it.
Then please provide patches that add proper support for that.
The changes were necessary to fix repeate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Matt Turner:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:49 PM, hasufell
> wrote:
Why do you send RFC out when you ignore comments?
>>>
>>> I didn't see any comments suggesting any changes.
>>
>> There were 2.
>
> I don't think there were. But I'll play alo
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:49 PM, hasufell wrote:
>>> Why do you send RFC out when you ignore comments?
>>
>> I didn't see any comments suggesting any changes.
>
> There were 2.
I don't think there were. But I'll play along with your trolling. A
recap of the thread:
1) I asked what the difference
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Matt Turner:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:18 PM, hasufell
> wrote:
>> Why do you send RFC out when you ignore comments?
>
> I didn't see any comments suggesting any changes.
>
There were 2.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTCpcPAAoJEF
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:18 PM, hasufell wrote:
> Why do you send RFC out when you ignore comments?
I didn't see any comments suggesting any changes.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Michał Górny:
> Dnia 2014-02-21, o godz. 21:07:54 Michał Górny
> napisał(a):
>
>> Many people found the current behavior of git-r3 eclass
>> unfortunate, lightly saying. Most importantly, I underestimated
>> how many packages actually require prett
Dnia 2014-02-21, o godz. 21:07:54
Michał Górny napisał(a):
> Many people found the current behavior of git-r3 eclass unfortunate,
> lightly saying. Most importantly, I underestimated how many packages
> actually require pretty complete '.git' metadata in the checkout,
> including complete history
> On Sat, 22 Feb 2014, hasufell wrote:
> If you are referring to me, then I have to say I am not against
> shallow clone support. I'm just against it being the default.
+1
Ulrich
pgp5zyv9ncrHi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Michał Górny:
>
> Patch #1 removes shallow clone support completely, and uses full
> mirroring instead. The new code would require even more
> conditionals to keep the two different behaviors around, and
> considering the negative reception it had
Dnia 2014-02-21, o godz. 14:14:54
Matt Turner napisał(a):
> After these patches, what are the differences between git-2 and
> git-r3? I thought the reason for git-r3's existence was shallow
> clones.
Off top of my head the important ones are:
1. bare clones of submodules,
2. separate fetch/che
After these patches, what are the differences between git-2 and
git-r3? I thought the reason for git-r3's existence was shallow
clones.
Hello,
Many people found the current behavior of git-r3 eclass unfortunate,
lightly saying. Most importantly, I underestimated how many packages
actually require pretty complete '.git' metadata in the checkout,
including complete history. Most of it was collected in bug #489100
[1].
I've finally
14 matches
Mail list logo
