Hi,
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010, Joey Hess wrote:
> Attached updated patch adds the ability to limit the history depth that
> is included in the git bundle (via --git-depth), as well as fully
> control which tags/branches/objects are included/excluded in the bundle
> (via --git-ref).
I've committed your
Attached updated patch adds the ability to limit the history depth that
is included in the git bundle (via --git-depth), as well as fully
control which tags/branches/objects are included/excluded in the bundle
(via --git-ref).
A new .gitshallow file is added to the source package to record info
gi
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> | * All history is currently included (via the --all switch to git-bundle),
> | but I plan to add a format-specific dpkg-source option, to allow
> | filtering of what is included in the bundle.
>
> Maybe allow a filter to be specified in debian/source somewhere?
It sh
Peter Krefting wrote:
> How does this interact with the actual Git repository, when it comes
> to detecting patches to upstream and such? I haven't really read up
> on how the format is specified, so please point me in that direction
> if what I am asking is obvious.
It *is* the actual git reposit
Joey Hess:
A while ago there was discussion onlist about making 3.0 (git) use
git-bundle as its repository serialization format. I think that is a great
improvement from the old ad-hoc format. Attached patch implements it.
How does this interact with the actual Git repository, when it comes t
]] Joey Hess
| A while ago there was discussion onlist about making 3.0 (git) use
| git-bundle as its repository serialization format. I think that is a
| great improvement from the old ad-hoc format. Attached patch implements
| it.
You are awesome, this looks like a great improvement. (I haven
6 matches
Mail list logo
