Re: --no-git-update vs ERROR: Repository foo is not cached yet
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 05:44:38PM +0100, Paul Sherwood wrote:
Please could we make the no-git-update functionality smart enough to
try to pull any repo that's not actually cached?
I like the idea of only pulling a repo if there's a need: either the
repo isn't cached locally yet at all, or the wanted ref or sha1 isn't
cached locally. I like it so much I think it should be the default
behaviour (i.e., not changing how --no-git-update should work).
I'll make a note of this so we remember this. It may have to wait for
the next deveopment cycle, though, sorry.
--
http://www.codethink.co.uk/ http://wiki.baserock.org/ http://www.baserock.com/