Re: [PATCH 0/2] Slightly simplify partial clone user experience
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Mar 22, 2020, 09:51 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20200322095137.GB635598@coredump.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <pull.586.git.1584638887.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 05:28:05PM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
> This was something discussed briefly at the contributor summit: users will > have a hard time remembering git clone --filter=blob:none <url>. This series > simply adds a --partial option that is equivalent to --filter=blob:none, > with the ability to specify a size using --partial=<size> that is equivalent > to --filter=blob:limit=<size>.
I have mixed feelings on this. I do like making things less arcane for users. But are we locking in a behavior for --partial that we might not want to live with forever? I.e., the current thinking for partial clones is to fetch no blobs at all, get all commits and trees, apply sparse filters, and then fault in the blobs we need. But imagine we later grow the ability to easily avoid fetching all of the trees. Would we regret having the simple name "--partial" taken?
-Peff