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

Re: [PATCH] git clone depth of 0 not possible.

From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date
Jan 8, 2013, 17:24 UTC
Message-ID
<7vk3rnfv0f.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To
<50EC2DE5.2050704@googlemail.com>
Stefan Beller <stefanbeller@googlemail.com> writes:
Show 14 quoted lines
> On 01/08/2013 03:28 PM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Speaking of --depth, I think in Git 2.0 we should fix the semantics
>>> of "deepening" done with "git fetch".
>> 
>> Speaking of 2.0, we should support depth per ref. Well we don't have
>> to wait until 2.0 because we could just add shallow2 extension to the
>> pack protocol. We should also apply depth to new refs when fetching
>> them the first time.
>
> Would this mean I could do something along?
> $ git clone --since v1.8.0 git://github.com/gitster/git.git
>
> So tags would be allowed as anchors?

As the end-user facing UI, I think it would be much easier to use for users who want to get only the recent part of history that is relevant to their development if you allowed them to ask "starting from this one, I do not care anything older than that" with such an interface. The current "count how many more generations you want" interface is crazy in that it forces you to count what you have not even seen; I suspect the only reason it was done in such a hacky manner was implementation expediency.

At the syntax level, however, I do not think we can use --since there, because the keyword has a very different meaning already.

I personally do not think "depth per ref" deserves "it would be nice to support in 2.0", let alone "2.0 *should* support", label. Some may find it an interesting mental exercise to think about corner cases it will introduce and have to deal with (e.g. you ask 100 from master and 2 from maint, but maint is behind master by less than 100---what should happen?), but I do not particularly see any practical use cases, and I highly doubt that there is much value in bringing in extra complexity such a "feature" requires to do it right.

Previous: Duy NguyenNext: Duy Nguyen
Message 10 of 29 in “git clone depth of 0 not possible.”
  1. git clone depth of 0 not possible.Stefan Beller, Jan 7, 2013
  2. Documentation on depth option in git clone.Stefan Beller, Jan 7, 2013
  3. Jonathan NiederJan 8, 2013
  4. Junio C HamanoJan 8, 2013
  5. Junio C HamanoJan 8, 2013
  6. Junio C HamanoJan 8, 2013
  7. Duy NguyenJan 8, 2013
  8. Stefan BellerJan 8, 2013
  9. Duy NguyenJan 8, 2013
  10. Junio C HamanoJan 8, 2013
  11. Duy NguyenJan 8, 2013
  12. Junio C HamanoJan 8, 2013
  13. Matthijs KooijmanMay 28, 2013
  14. Jonathan NiederMay 28, 2013
  15. Jonathan NiederMay 28, 2013
  16. Matthijs KooijmanMay 28, 2013
  17. Jonathan NiederMay 28, 2013
  18. Junio C HamanoMay 28, 2013
  19. Matthijs KooijmanMay 30, 2013
  20. Junio C HamanoJun 2, 2013
  21. Matthijs KooijmanJul 9, 2013
  22. Matthijs KooijmanJul 11, 2013
  23. 1/3 upload-pack: Remove a piece of dead codeMatthijs Kooijman, Jul 11, 2013
  24. 2/3 upload-pack: Introduce new "fixed-off-by-one-depth" server featureMatthijs Kooijman, Jul 11, 2013
  25. 3/3 fetch-pack: Request fixed-off-by-one-depth when availableMatthijs Kooijman, Jul 11, 2013
  26. Duy NguyenJul 11, 2013
  27. Junio C HamanoJul 11, 2013
  28. Duy NguyenJan 8, 2013
  29. Junio C HamanoJan 8, 2013

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.