git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [BUG REPORT] git 2.9.0 clone --recursive fails on cloning a submodule

From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date
Jun 20, 2016, 10:02 UTC
Message-ID
<20160620100256.GA14058@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To
<CAGZ79kZ9NF57EyEZ4PgOhJw50ujt=QmHs+w1ZNFeDO4zitksVQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 06:09:28PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
Show 13 quoted lines
> > I hadn't paid much attention to this topic originally, but was surprised
> > that "--depth 10" in the clone implies "--depth 1" in the submodule.
> > This is not really related to your patch (in fact, your patch makes the
> > logic go away). But maybe something to consider if it's ever resurrected
> > (or possibly if somebody runs "--shallow-submodules --depth 5" we should
> > pass --depth=1; I dunno).
> 
> How often do we see a depth != 1 in practice?
> I have the impression (and no data to back up my claim) that a binary
> switch for nonshallow or depth 1 would serve us just as good, which is why
> I did not want to ad complexity to the submodule depth.
> (What if you want submodule A with depth 2 and B with 5? In that
> case get them all shallow and deepen as appropriate, would be my answer)

To be honest, I don't know why people use anything except --depth=1, but it's clear from my experience that they do. This example has --depth=10, and on the server side at GitHub I have seen similar numbers from clients, especially CI services.

(I take special note of such cases because --shallow quite often causes performance problems on the server side, though generally --depth=10 is not any worse than --depth=1. The worst case is really "--no-single-branch --depth=1", which wants a ton of objects but has to throw away all of the on-disk deltas).

Show 9 quoted lines
> > We are not really testing "does not imply" here, but "passing
> > --shallow-submodules works". The "does not imply" test would be cloning
> > without the option and checking that the resulting submodules are not
> > shallow.
> 
> In case we want to be sure that it works for 2.9.1, i.e. we treat it
> as a regression,
> we need to test the "does not imply" a bit more I would think. I can send that
> test on top tomorrow if you'd like to.

I think it's worth doing (and testing both: the default behavior, and that the --shallow-submodules feature works). Thanks.

-Peff
Previous: Dennis KaarsemakerNext: Stefan Beller
Message 10 of 17 in “[BUG REPORT] git 2.9.0 clone --recursive fails on cloning a submodule”
  1. Vadim EisenbergJun 19, 2016
  2. Jeff KingJun 19, 2016
  3. Vadim EisenbergJun 19, 2016
  4. Jeff KingJun 19, 2016
  5. Junio C HamanoJun 19, 2016
  6. Jeff KingJun 20, 2016
  7. Stefan BellerJun 20, 2016
  8. Vadim EisenbergJun 20, 2016
  9. Dennis KaarsemakerJun 20, 2016
  10. Jeff KingJun 20, 2016
  11. shallow clone to not imply shallow submodulesStefan Beller, Jun 20, 2016
  12. Jeff KingJun 20, 2016
  13. Stefan BellerJun 20, 2016
  14. Jeff KingJun 20, 2016
  15. Ævar Arnfjörð BjarmasonApr 19, 2017
  16. Stefan BellerApr 19, 2017
  17. Duy NguyenJun 21, 2016

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.