Re: [PATCH 02/10] pack-objects: add --partial-by-size=n --partial-special
- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 09:58:23 -0800
- From: Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] pack-objects: add --partial-by-size=n --partial-special
On 03/09, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 03:21:11PM -0500, Jeff Hostetler wrote:
> > > And not ."gitmodules"?
> > >
> > > What happens when we later add ".gitsomethingelse"?
> > >
> > > Do we have to worry about the case where the set of git "special
> > > files" (can we have a better name for them please, by the way?)
> > > understood by the sending side and the receiving end is different?
> > >
> > > I have a feeling that a mode that makes anything whose name begins
> > > with ".git" excempt from the size based cutoff may generally be
> > > easier to handle.
> > I forgot about ".gitmodules". The more I think about it, maybe
> > we should always include them (or anything starting with ".git*")
> > and ignore the size, since they are important for correct behavior.
> I'm also in favor of staking out ".git*" as "this is special and belongs
> to Git".
I agree, .git* files should probably be the bare minimum of files
included. Especially since things like .gitattributes can effect things
> A while back when we discussed whether to allow symlinks for
> .gitattributes, etc, I think the consensus was to treat the whole
> ".git*" namespace consistently. I haven't followed up with patches yet,
> but my plan was to go that route.
Well if I remember correctly you sent out some patches for
.gitattributes but I got in the way with the refactoring work! :)