Re: [PATCH] fetch: add config to avoid fetching every branch in shallow repo
- From
- Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 23, 2026, 15:19 UTC
- Message-ID
- <05d0e6e0-e156-4a2a-95a0-4986ab18ef49@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqh5jhfbyw.fsf@gitster.g>
On 22/09/2026 18:11, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 27 quoted lines
> Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I think the sparse checkout is irrelevant? It is unclear to me if this
>> is talking about a case where there are many branches in the remote
>> repository and only one of them was cloned, then adding a second remote
>> created a wildcard fetch refspec; or if there are intentionally lots of
>> remote tracking branches in the local repository and you don't want to
>> wait for them all to update. If it is the former then we should think
>> how we can improve the behavior of "git remote add" in a sparse
>> repository to prevent it adding a wildcard fetch refspec and instead
>> setup the new remote to fetch only the branch(es) we're interested in.
>
> Very good suggestions. "Avoid wildcards" is easy, but designing a
> suitable alternative ("only the ones we are interested in") may be
> harder.
>
> Perhaps we want to have something similar in spirit to the
> "matching" mode 'git push' has, where the set of local branches we
> have defines the set of branches we are interested in? That is,
> when 'remote.*.fetch' is configured to signal that special mode,
> 'git fetch' would:
>
> - Find each local branch that has its '@{upstream}' set to a branch
> at the remote we are fetching from.
>
> - Fetch these branches at the remote that our local branches care
> about.I can see that being useful fetch mode for a remote that we've already fetched from, but for a newly added remote there will be no local branches with their upstream set to it because "git branch --set-upstream-to" fails if the upstream does not already exist. So I like the idea for fetching from existing remotes, but it leaves us with a chicken-and-egg problem when adding new remotes, so I'm not sure how it would work in practice.
Thanks
Phillip > I said "in spirit" above, and I find it tempting to use ':' and '+:'
Show 25 quoted lines
> as the special '<refspec>' to trigger this mode, to mimic what 'git > push' does when using the local branches we have as the set of > branches we care about. But there are important differences: > > (1) The correspondence between local and remote-tracking branches > is not one-to-one, as you can fork multiple local topics out > of the same upstream branch. Maybe our 7 local branches build > on top of only 2 branches we fetch from the remote, for > example. > > (2) Corollary. Unlike the matching mode in 'git push' where local > branch 'B' is used to update branch 'B' at the remote (if it > exists), this new mode in 'git fetch' only uses local branches > as a guide to determine which branches to fetch from the > remote. If our local branch 'B' builds on top of branch 'U' at > the remote, it is branch 'U' we fetch and store as the > 'refs/remotes/R/U' remote-tracking branch, where 'R' is the > remote, and 'B' as the name does not get anywhere in the > picture. > > In other words, this is not "matching" at all, even though it takes > inspiration from it. I do not know what it should be called, but I > think it would be a useful addition. > > Thanks.