Re: git-clone --how-much-disk-space-will-this-cost-me? [--depth n]

From: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date: Dec 17, 2008, 16:21 UTC
Message-ID: <20081217162127.GG32487@spearce.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0812171104340.30035@xanadu.home>

Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> 
> And I consider any system doing such thing completely stupid.  Either 
> you consistently know the information or you don't.  When you don't, it 
> is best to not create expectations for the user.  And so far I think 
> that 99.9% of git users are just fine with the progress display we 
> currently provide.

Certainly true here; I never care how big the source I'm cloning is. But then again I have pretty good network connectivity at work and at least cable modem service at home... most things clone down pretty fast.

Its a quick hack to give a size upper bound. I don't think its that ugly. Our network protocol is uglier with all of its hidden fields jammed behind that NUL in the first advertisement line. But I digress.

The better feature is probably resumable clone anyway. At least then people can abort a "long running" clone and have a good chance they can pick it up again in the near future. Its also not easy to implement, which is why we've only been talking about it for years and never actually seen a patch proposing to do it.

-- 
Shawn.