On Nov 24, 2015, at 5:37 PM, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier@gmail.com> wrote:Hi Skip,2015-11-24 17:30 GMT+01:00 Skip Lentz��<skip.lentz@inria.fr>:
It would be nice to have some less metadata in the repository (or none at all), especially for merging. Method and author timestamps can be gathered from the commit information, the ���version��� fill in the monticello.meta directory is not necessary too I think, since we have the commit messages obviously..Well, GitFileTree has all that code:- Monticello metadata extraction from git logs- Filetree without MetadataSome of the information in the meta directory is necessary (pre/post load scripts).Where are those pre/post load scripts defined? Does anyone ever use it?
I think having a FileTree reader/writer that is not coupled to Monticello would be good, but maybe I���m saying something that is not possible.No, it is possible (everything is), but a bit complex for maintenance (how do you track changes and corrections in the FileTree code?).Of course, the sky is the limit :P. Although I���m not sure I understand what you mean here, could you explain?
Alright so this is odd.. Martin had the same behavior. Thank you for all your feedback, it���s very helpful.Maybe just an effect of the ordering (github gives you a list of repositories, isn't it?)Actually now that I think of it, it���s probably due to the fact that when you request a list of something (e.g. list of commits, list of repositories, etc.) the API gives you a paginated result. This means that it will give you the first 25 repositories, and a link to retrieve the next 25, and so on. Pagination still has to be implemented. API documentation about pagination is here:��https://developer.github.com/v3/#pagination