From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: VCS comparison table Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:20:28 -0400 Message-ID: <20061018212028.GC24707@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <9e4733910610140807p633f5660q49dd2d2111c9f5fe@mail.gmail.com> <200610172351.17377.jnareb@gmail.com> <4535590C.4000004@utoronto.ca> <200610180057.25411.jnareb@gmail.com> <20061018053647.GA3507@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Oct 18 23:20:47 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GaIqA-0006PY-2g for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:20:42 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422978AbWJRVUf (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:20:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422979AbWJRVUf (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:20:35 -0400 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:22657 "HELO peff.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1422978AbWJRVUa (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:20:30 -0400 Received: (qmail 29425 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2006 17:20:28 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net with SMTP; 18 Oct 2006 17:20:28 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:20:28 -0400 To: Linus Torvalds Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 07:52:25AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > git send origin.. > > and that "origin" is what the other end is expected to already have. > > Of course, if you send an unconnected bundle (ie you give an origin that > the other end _doesn't_ have), you're screwed. OK, that was how I was envisioning it, as well, but I was concerned about the "screwed" part. But I'm not sure how often that would be an issue in practice (after all, patches require some matchup of the base, though not as strict as SHA1s). Thanks for the explanation. -Peff