DVCS vs. Subversion brittleness (was Re: Moving to D)

[nedbrek]

Hello all,

"Michel Fortin" <michel.fortin at michelf.com> wrote in message 
news:iiu8dm$10te$1 at digitalmars.com...
> On 2011-02-09 07:49:31 -0500, Bruno Medeiros 
> <brunodomedeiros+spam at com.gmail> said:
>> On 04/02/2011 20:11, Michel Fortin wrote:
>>> On 2011-02-04 11:12:12 -0500, Bruno Medeiros
>>> <brunodomedeiros+spam at 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