From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: .gitlink for Summer of Code Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:54:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <1174825838.12540.5.camel@localhost> <20070325203901.GB12376@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Matthieu Moy , git@vger.kernel.org, Eric Lesh To: "Shawn O. Pearce" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Mar 25 22:54:27 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HVZjO-0004qp-Mk for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:54:27 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752694AbXCYUyY (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:54:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752700AbXCYUyY (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:54:24 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:33359 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752694AbXCYUyX (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:54:23 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2007 20:54:21 -0000 Received: from wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de (EHLO wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de) [132.187.25.13] by mail.gmx.net (mp002) with SMTP; 25 Mar 2007 22:54:21 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+CtQ1VQGGC0fEr/jADTgV60vktIyzF8aCB1emiUz clNPOyfp8IkHN/ X-X-Sender: gene099@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de In-Reply-To: <20070325203901.GB12376@spearce.org> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Sun, 25 Mar 2007, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > Matthieu Moy wrote: > > Eric Lesh writes: > > > > > .gitlink is for a lightweight checkout of a branch into a separate > > > directory on the local filesystem. > > > > I think it's a pitty to restrict yourself to _local_ filesystem. There > > are tons of cases where you have a fast, non-NFS, access to a machine > > and would like to host your repository there. > > > > That said, I suppose removing this restriction moves the solution from > > the category "quick and efficient hack" to something much harder. > > Yes. But there's another project on the ideas list that addresses > that (``Lazy Clone''). It is quite a bit more difficult than the > .gitlink idea as the implementation requires a network protocol > client implemented somewhere near the read_sha1_file interface. Not only that. You'd have to change the way read_sha1_file() is called to allow fetching more than one object at a time. Otherwise this will be so slow as to be unusable. That's basically the reason why I changed my mind, and preferred shallow clones over lazy clones. Ciao, Dscho